Restriction site-associated DNA sequencing, genotyping error estimation and de novo assembly optimization for population genetic inference.

Restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) provides researchers with the ability to record genetic polymorphism across thousands of loci for nonmodel organisms, potentially revolutionizing the field of molecular ecology. However, as with other genotyping methods, RADseq is prone to a number of sources of error that may have consequential effects for population genetic inferences, and these have received only limited attention in terms of the estimation and reporting of genotyping error rates. Here we use individual sample replicates, under the expectation of identical genotypes, to quantify genotyping error in the absence of a reference genome. We then use sample replicates to (i) optimize de novo assembly parameters within the program Stacks, by minimizing error and maximizing the retrieval of informative loci; and (ii) quantify error rates for loci, alleles and single-nucleotide polymorphisms. As an empirical example, we use a double-digest RAD data set of a nonmodel plant species, Berberis alpina, collected from high-altitude mountains in Mexico.

Cardiovascular risk estimation and eligibility for statin therapy using different scoring systems in Europe: a population-based study in Switzerland

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for statin use for primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) are based on estimation of the 10- year CHD risk. We compared the 10-year CHD risk assessments and eligibility percentages for statin therapy using three scoring algorithms currently used in Europe. METHODS: We studied 5683 women and men, aged 35-75, without overt cardiovascular disease (CVD), in a population-based study in Switzerland. We compared the 10-year CHD risk using three scoring schemes, i.e., the Framingham risk score (FRS) from the U.S. National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III), the PROCAM scoring scheme from the International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS), and the European risk SCORE for low-risk countries, without and with extrapolation to 60 years as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology guidelines (ESC). With FRS and PROCAM, high-risk was defined as a 10- year risk of fatal or non-fatal CHD>20% and a 10-year risk of fatal CVD≥5% with SCORE. We compared the proportions of high-risk participants and eligibility for statin use according to these three schemes. For each guideline, we estimated the impact of increased statin use from current partial compliance to full compliance on potential CHD deaths averted over 10 years, using a success proportion of 27% for statins. RESULTS: Participants classified at high-risk (both genders) were 5.8% according to FRS and 3.0% to the PROCAM, whereas the European risk SCORE classified 12.5% at high-risk (15.4% with extrapolation to 60 years). For the primary prevention of CHD, 18.5% of participants were eligible for statin therapy using ATP III, 16.6% using IAS, and 10.3% using ESC (13.0% with extrapolation) because ESC guidelines recommend statin therapy only in high-risk subjects. In comparison with IAS, agreement to identify eligible adults for statins was good with ATP III, but moderate with ESC. Using a population perspective, a full compliance with ATP III guidelines would reduce up to 17.9% of the 24′ 310 CHD deaths expected over 10 years in Switzerland, 17.3% with IAS and 10.8% with ESC (11.5% with extrapolation). CONCLUSIONS: Full compliance with guidelines for statin therapy would result in substantial health benefits, but proportions of high-risk adults and eligible adults for statin use varied substantially depending on the scoring systems and corresponding guidelines used for estimating CHD risk in Europe.