Skip to main content
Dryad logo

Data from: Comparison of target-capture and restriction-site associated DNA sequencing for phylogenomics: a test in cardinalid tanagers (Aves, genus: Piranga)

Citation

Manthey, Joseph D; Campillo, Luke C; Burns, Kevin J; Moyle, Robert G (2016), Data from: Comparison of target-capture and restriction-site associated DNA sequencing for phylogenomics: a test in cardinalid tanagers (Aves, genus: Piranga), Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j5n06

Abstract

Restriction-site associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) and target capture of specific genomic regions, such as ultraconserved elements (UCEs), are emerging as two of the most popular methods for phylogenomics using reduced-representation genomic datasets. These two methods were designed to target different evolutionary timescales: RAD-seq was designed for population-genomic level questions and UCEs for deeper phylogenetics. The utility of both datasets to infer phylogenies across a variety of taxonomic levels has not been adequately compared within the same taxonomic system. Additionally, the effects of uninformative gene trees on species tree analyses (for target capture data) have not been explored. Here, we utilize RAD-seq and UCE data to infer a phylogeny of the bird genus Piranga. The group has a range of divergence dates (0.5 my – 6 my), contains eleven recognized species, and lacks a resolved phylogeny. We compared two species tree methods for the RAD-seq data and six species tree methods for the UCE data. Additionally, in the UCE data, we analyzed a complete matrix as well as datasets with only highly informative loci. A complete matrix of 189 UCE loci with ten or more parsimony informative (PI) sites, and an ~80% complete matrix of 1128 PI SNPs (from RAD-seq) yield the same fully resolved phylogeny of Piranga. We inferred non-monophyletic relationships of P. lutea individuals, with all other a priori species identified as monophyletic. Finally, we found that species tree analyses that included predominantly uninformative gene trees provided strong support for different topologies, with consistent phylogenetic results when limiting species tree analyses to highly informative loci or only using less informative loci with concatenation or methods meant for SNPs alone.

Usage Notes