I worked for Life Technologies back in the SOLiD days and I'm honestly not surprised at all about their failure to deliver PII. There was a definitely a culture of overpromising what could be done with their tech just to generate hype and artificially inflate the stock price. Anybody else recall all the fuss they made about the $1000 genome with Ion Proton (http://www.cnet.com/news/proton-promises-us-1000-genome-mapping-by-year-end/)?
You probably skipped the Materials and methods
section, where it is said:
>"Statistics were done using GraphPad Prism."
My bet: GraphPad Prism produced the picture.
Disappointing that they didn't even look at or mention polyploidy. There's quite an interesting correlation with polyploidy and species richness
I'm also curious how telling the current environment is when speciation no doubt took place during a fairly different environmental era.
Methodologically though it's a bit sad to see a study published in 2016 that's making a phylogeny based off of 4 genes. 1987 is a ton of genera, but I can't believe there's no repository data or that sequence capture/RADseq approaches were totally out of play. I suppose this study didn't exactly need NGS for their phylogeny, but there's plenty of issues with just using a handful of plastid genes that make me leery.
Far be it from me to critique something coming out a Kew, but I'm not super warm to this paper.
Take a look at "Extended Data Figure 3, Clustering pattern distributions" from Shipony, all (2014).:
They show a stack of reads with methylated and unmethylated CpGs. Why is there a difference? Shouldn't the sequencer agree upon one correct answer?
Link works for me! Here is the paper. Thank you for the link! Just wetting my feet in epigenetics, coming from a behavioral research background (maternal behavior). Anyway, thanks!