ArticlePloS one2025
Optimizing genomic diversity assessments for conservation of Bromus auleticus (Trinius ex Nees) using individual and pooled sequencing.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bromus auleticus, a valuable forage grass native to the Pampa biome, is currently undergoing genetic erosion. Therefore, it is essential to assess appropriate methodologies for developing population genomic studies that will contribute to the conservation of this genetic resource. In this study, we evaluated five accessions using two genotyping strategies: individual sequencing (ind-seq) and pooled sequencing (pool-seq). To assess methodologies effectiveness, the correlation between allele frequencies calculated using each approach was investigated, as well as genetic diversity and population structure. These comparisons explicitly accounted for the potential effects of factors such as sample size, missing data, sequencing depth, and minor allele frequencies. The highest values of frequencies concordance and percentage of SNPs in common between ind-seq and pool-seq were achieved using a sample size of 30-60 plants per accession. These values were obtained with a maximum missing data threshold of 10% and a less strict minimum allele frequency threshold for pool-seq (0.01) compared to ind-seq (0.05). Pool-seq required a higher sequencing depth per accession (4.8 million reads) compared to ind-seq (0.9 million reads) to achieve similar allele frequencies. Pools of 50 individuals yielded the highest number of polymorphic sites, averaging over 9,000 per accession at a sequencing depth of 4.8 Mr. Under these conditions, pool-seq consistently resulted in an average of 0.09 higher expected heterozygosity and a 0.24 lower allelic richness compared to ind-seq in all accessions. Population structure inferred with both methodologies confirmed the outcrossing nature of B. auleticus and aligned with the geographical origin of each accession. The average inbreeding coefficient of 0.2 evidence inbreeding, which highlights the importance of conservation efforts for this valuable plant genetic resource. Based on these findings, we propose two workflows for conducting population genomics studies on Bromus auleticus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.