Search for: All records

New computational methods and next‐generation sequencing (NGS) approaches have enabled the use of thousands or hundreds of thousands of genetic markers to address previously intractable questions. The methods and massive marker sets present both new data analysis challenges and opportunities to visualize, understand, and apply population and conservation genomic data in novel ways. The large scale and complexity of NGS data also increases the expertise and effort required to thoroughly and thoughtfully analyze and interpret data. To aid in this endeavor, a recent workshop entitled “Population Genomic Data Analysis,” also known as “ConGen 2017,” was held at the University of Montana. The ConGen workshop brought 15 instructors together with knowledge in a wide range of topics including NGS data filtering, genome assembly, genomic monitoring of effective population size, migration modeling, detecting adaptive genomic variation, genomewide association analysis, inbreeding depression, and landscape genomics. Here, we summarize the major themes of the workshop and the important take‐home points that were offered to students throughout. We emphasize increasing participation by women in population and conservation genomics as a vital step for the advancement of science. Some important themes that emerged during the workshop included the need for data visualization and its importance in finding problematic data, the effects of data filtering choices on downstream population genomic analyses, the increasing availability of whole‐genome sequencing, and the new challenges it presents. Our goal here is to help motivate and educate a worldwide audience to improve population genomic data analysis and interpretation, and thereby advance the contribution of genomics to molecular ecology, evolutionary biology, and especially to the conservation of biodiversity.

The boom of massive parallel sequencing (MPS) technology and its applications in conservation of natural and managed populations brings new opportunities and challenges to meet the scientific questions that can be addressed. Genomic conservation offers a wide range of approaches and analytical techniques, with their respective strengths and weaknesses that rely on several implicit assumptions. However, finding the most suitable approaches and analysis regarding our scientific question are often difficult and time‐consuming. To address this gap, a recent workshop entitled ‘ConGen 2015’ was held at Montana University in order to bring together the knowledge accumulated in this field and to provide training in conceptual and practical aspects of data analysis applied to the field of conservation and evolutionary genomics. Here, we summarize the expertise yield by each instructor that has led us to consider the importance of keeping in mind the scientific question from sampling to management practices along with the selection of appropriate genomics tools and bioinformatics challenges.

Understanding how environmental variation influences population genetic structure is important for conservation management because it can reveal how human stressors influence population connectivity, genetic diversity and persistence. We used riverscape genetics modelling to assess whether climatic and habitat variables were related to neutral and adaptive patterns of genetic differentiation (population‐specific and pairwiseF_ST) within five metapopulations (79 populations, 4583 individuals) of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Columbia River Basin,USA. Using 151 putatively neutral and 29 candidate adaptiveSNPloci, we found that climate‐related variables (winter precipitation, summer maximum temperature, winter highest 5% flow events and summer mean flow) best explained neutral and adaptive patterns of genetic differentiation within metapopulations, suggesting that climatic variation likely influences both demography (neutral variation) and local adaptation (adaptive variation). However, we did not observe consistent relationships between climate variables andF_STacross all metapopulations, underscoring the need for replication when extrapolating results from one scale to another (e.g. basin‐wide to the metapopulation scale). Sensitivity analysis (leave‐one‐population‐out) revealed consistent relationships between climate variables andF_STwithinthree metapopulations; however, these patterns were not consistent in two metapopulations likely due to small sample sizes (N = 10). These results provide correlative evidence that climatic variation has shaped the genetic structure of steelhead populations and highlight the need for replication and sensitivity analyses in land and riverscape genetics.