Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ascertainment bias correction SNPs (RADseq data) #59

Closed
Carol-Symbiomics opened this issue Jan 31, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

ascertainment bias correction SNPs (RADseq data) #59

Carol-Symbiomics opened this issue Jan 31, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@Carol-Symbiomics
Copy link

hi everyone!
I was curious about the implementation of the ascertainment bias correction within RAxML-ng.

I found RAxML-ng way more user-friendly than the raxmlHPC. So I decided to use RAxML-ng to process my RADseq data. I have a phylip matrix (which I got from the conversion of a vcf file). I was following the tutorial steps to proceed but after running the "Tree Inference" step I found out I have too many different tree topologies.
I'm only interested in getting a clustering analysis, just cause I might have cryptic species within my data set. I've read that the ascertainment bias correction (recommended when using only variable sites as is the case of SNPs) is only important if one wants to correct for the branch length.
At this point, I'm not sure on how to proceed as my tree inference assessment shows my trees do not converge to a single topology
Reading input trees from file: mltrees
Loaded 21 trees with 323 taxa.

Average absolute RF distance in this tree set: 160.200000
Average relative RF distance in this tree set: 0.250312
Number of unique topologies in this tree set: 20

Any advice will be greatly appreciated

@stamatak
Copy link
Collaborator

stamatak commented Feb 1, 2019 via email

@amkozlov
Copy link
Owner

amkozlov commented Feb 4, 2019

Answered in RAxML google group:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/raxml/V4RqMV2vxjY

@amkozlov amkozlov closed this as completed Feb 4, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants