Search

Conservation and management professionals often work across jurisdictional boundaries to identify broad ecological patterns. These collaborations help to protect populations whose distributions span political borders. One common limitation to multijurisdictional collaboration is consistency in data recording and reporting. This limitation can impact genetic research, which relies on data about specific markers in an organism's genome. Incomplete overlap of markers between separate studies can prevent direct comparisons of results. Standardized marker panels can reduce the impact of this issue and provide a common starting place for new research. Genotyping‐in‐thousands (GTSeq) is one approach used to create standardized marker panels for nonmodel organisms. Here, we describe the development, optimization, and early assessments of a new GTSeq panel for use with walleye (Sander vitreus) from the Great Lakes region of North America. High genome‐coverage sequencing conducted using RAD capture provided genotypes for thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). From these markers, SNP and microhaplotype markers were chosen, which were informative for genetic stock identification (GSI) and kinship analysis. The final GTSeq panel contained 500 markers, including 197 microhaplotypes and 303 SNPs. Leave‐one‐out GSI simulations indicated that GSI accuracy should be greater than 80% in most jurisdictions. The false‐positive rates of parent‐offspring and full‐sibling kinship identification were found to be low. Finally, genotypes could be consistently scored among separate sequencing runs >94% of the time. Results indicate that the GTSeq panel that we developed should perform well for multijurisdictional walleye research throughout the Great Lakes region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of high‐throughput, low‐density sequencing approaches has dramatically increased in recent years in studies of eco‐evolutionary processes in wild populations and domestication in commercial aquaculture. Most of these studies focus on identifying panels of SNP loci for a single downstream application, whereas there have been few studies examining the trade‐offs for selecting panels of markers for use in multiple applications. Here, we detail the use of a bioinformatic workflow for the development of a dual‐purpose SNP panel for parentage and population assignment, which included identifying putative SNP loci, filtering for the most informative loci for the two tasks, designing effective multiplex PCR primers, optimizing the SNP panel for performance, and performing quality control steps for downstream applications. We applied this workflow to two adjacent Alaskan Sockeye Salmon populations and identified a GTseq panel of 142 SNP loci for parentage and 35 SNP loci for population assignment. Only 50–75 panel loci were necessary for >95% accurate parentage, whereas population assignment success, with all 172 panel loci, ranged from 93.9% to 96.2%. Finally, we discuss the trade‐offs and complexities of the decision‐making process that drives SNP panel development, optimization, and testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The genomics revolution has initiated a new era of population genetics where genome‐wide data are frequently used to understand complex patterns of population structure and selection. However, the application of genomic tools to inform management and conservation has been somewhat rare outside a few well studied species. Fortunately, two recently developed approaches, amplicon sequencing and sequence capture, have the potential to significantly advance the field of conservation genomics. Here, amplicon sequencing refers to highly multiplexed PCR followed by high‐throughput sequencing (e.g., GTseq), and sequence capture refers to using capture probes to isolate loci from reduced‐representation libraries (e.g., Rapture). Both approaches allow sequencing of thousands of individuals at relatively low costs, do not require any specialized equipment for library preparation, and generate data that can be analyzed without sophisticated computational infrastructure. Here, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method and provide a decision framework for geneticists who are looking to integrate these methods into their research programme. While it will always be important to consider the specifics of the biological question and system, we believe that amplicon sequencing is best suited for projects aiming to genotype <500 loci on many individuals (>1,500) or for species where continued monitoring is anticipated (e.g., long‐term pedigrees). Sequence capture, on the other hand, is best applied to projects including fewer individuals or where >500 loci are required. Both of these techniques should smooth the transition from traditional genetic techniques to genomics, helping to usher in the conservation genomics era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]