Would an RRS by any other name sound as RAD?. Issue 9 (5th July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Campbell, Erin O.; Brunet, Bryan M. T.; Dupuis, Julian R.; Sperling, Felix A. H.
• Editors: Matschiner, Michael
• Is Part Of: Methods in ecology and evolution. Volume 9:Issue 9(2018)
• Page Start: 1920
• Page End: 1927
• Publication Date: 2018-07-05
• Subjects: GBS -- next‐generation sequencing -- RADseq -- reduced representation sequencing -- RRS; Ecology -- Periodicals; Evolution -- Periodicals; 577
• DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13038
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2041-210X

Abstract

Abstract: Sampling markers throughout a genome with restriction enzymes emerged in the 2000s as reduced representation shotgun sequencing (RRS). Rapid advances in sequencing technology have since spurred modifications of RRS, giving rise to many derivatives with unique names, such as restriction site‐associated DNA sequencing (RADseq). But naming conventions have often been more creative than consistent and criteria for recognizing unique methods have been unclear, resulting in a proliferation of names characterized by ambiguity. We give an overview of methodological and etymological relationships among 36 restriction enzyme‐based methods, and survey the consistency of references to five prominent methods in the literature. We identified several instances of methodological convergence, and note that many published derivatives have modified only minor elements of parent protocols. Misattribution through ambiguous or inconsistent literature references was observed in 8.4% of journal articles citing the original one and two‐enzyme RADseq and GBS, as well as SBG publications. The rapid expansion of names associated with derivative protocols is confusing and, in many cases, unwarranted. We urge greater restraint in naming derivative methods and suggest general guidelines for naming that promote a balance between clarity, descriptiveness, and recognition of scientific innovation.