Yes, the problem was solved the following way:
First, after demultiplexing the RAD-seq data, I ran the denovo_map of stacks. I specified "F2" as the cross (option -A). Depending on the cross that was performed choose the one corresponding to your data. I think this was my problem. I didn't choose the right cross thinking I had another type of data. Once that confusion was sorted, everything started to work.
After running deno_map.pl I ran the genotypes program the following way:
genotypes -b 1 -P . -r 7 -t F2 -o onemap -c
This allowed me to get the genotypes for each marker and of each progeny sample in the onemap format.
Then I ran onemap to build linkage groups and order the markers:
This is what I got:
> F2 <- read.mapmaker(file="for-onemap-analysis.txt")
--Read the following data:
Type of cross: f2
Number of individuals: 95
Number of markers: 1329
> twopts.f2 <- rf.2pts(F2)
> mark.all <- make.seq(twopts.f2, "all")
> (LGs <- group(mark.all, LOD=20, max.rf=0.5))
This is an object of class 'group'
It was generated from the object "mark.all"
Criteria used to assign markers to groups:
LOD = 20 , Maximum recombination fraction = 0.5
No. markers: 1329
No. groups: 7
No. linked markers: 1294
No. unlinked markers: 35
With this LOD/max.rf I built 7 groups (and I know this is the number of chromosome of my species). These groups contain most of the markers. I then continued the analysis: ordered the markers using the RECORD method, cleaned the map using R/QTL (with R/QTL you can remove duplicate markers and samples, remove markers/samples with a lot of missing data, look at the segregation distortion...).
I hope this helps. Ah, I also re-ran the stacks ref_map.pl pipeline and it gave me the same result (the maps from the denovo_map.pl and from ref_map.pl are extremely similar).
Best,
Sophie
Unconfigured Ad
Collapse
X
-
Hi standonn,
I have the same problem. Do you have a solution now?
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks for answering! I'll follow your advice and post my question on the Stacks forum. Thanks for the link!
Leave a comment:
-
You could write your question to the Stacks Google group (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/stacks-users). Julian is pretty responsive.
I'd say it is normal to increase the number of unlinked markers as you increase the LOD score stringency. I don't know if your numbers look typical though.
Leave a comment:
-
Building a genetic map from RAD-seq using OneMap
Dear all,
I have some RAD-seq data from 2 parents and 97 offsprings. I would like to use this data to cluster my genomic scaffolds into linkage groups. I'm new to handling RAD-seq data and I'm not sure if what I'm doing is correct.
For the moment I have done the following:
- Quality Control of the RAD-seq reads
- Demultiplexed the files
- Mapped the RAD-seq reads to the genomic scaffolds (Bowtie2 + Samtools)
- Ran the ref_map.pl pipeline of Stacks, specifying a "onemap" output from the program "genotypes"
- Followed the tutorial step of OneMap (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packa...ed_version.pdf)
Now here is where things start not working: as I increase the LOD value, I get more linkage groups but I also increase the number of unlinked markers.
For example, with LOD=6, I get:
> groups
This is an object of class 'group'
It was generated from the object "all.mark"
Criteria used to assign markers to groups:
LOD = 6 , Maximum recombination fraction = 0.5
No. markers: 1342
No. groups: 1
No. linked markers: 901
No. unlinked markers: 441
With LOD=20, I get:
> groups
This is an object of class 'group'
It was generated from the object "all.mark"
Criteria used to assign markers to groups:
LOD = 20 , Maximum recombination fraction = 0.5
No. markers: 1342
No. groups: 9
No. linked markers: 225
No. unlinked markers: 1117
Is it normal to lose so many markers? What am I doing wrong?
Also some groups (with LOD=20), only have 2 markers which I guess is insufficient to have a good genetic map.
Any help or insight about building a genetic map using RAD-seq highly appreciated!
Cheers!
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by SEQadmin2
Tumors contain complex mixtures of cell populations that evolve in response to treatment and host-specific factors. Tissue biopsies provide only static snapshots of a tumor’s state. But what if we could follow that evolution over time using a minimally invasive technique?
Liquid biopsies can detect tumor-derived material circulating in the bloodstream, providing a way to study treatment response, detect emerging resistance, and discover new biomarkers. Circulating...-
Channel: Articles
10-14-2026, 09:55 AM -
-
by SEQadmin2
Researchers using sequencing and genomics tools often have to make trade-offs. They can choose between speed or scale, short reads or long-range information, or targeted panels or a view of the whole transcriptome. New technologies that have been released this year are built to address those tough choices.
We asked six companies the same four questions to learn about their latest products. The new technologies bring a lot to the table, including rethinking sequencing...-
Channel: Articles
-
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
| Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
|
0 responses
28 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
|
0 responses
36 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-13-2026, 09:56 AM
|
0 responses
31 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
10-13-2026, 09:56 AM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-09-2026, 11:14 AM
|
0 responses
29 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
10-09-2026, 11:14 AM
|
Leave a comment: