Dense sampling of bird diversity increases power of comparative genomics

Whole-genome sequencing projects are increasingly populating the tree of life and characterizing biodiversity(1-4). Sparse taxon sampling has previously been proposed to confound phylogenetic inference(5), and captures only a fraction of the genomic diversity. Here we report a substantial step towards the dense representation of avian phylogenetic and molecular diversity, by analysing 363 genomes from 92.4% of bird families-including 267 newly sequenced genomes produced for phase II of the Bird 10,000 Genomes (B10K) Project. We use this comparative genome dataset in combination with a pipeline that leverages a reference-free whole-genome alignment to identify orthologous regions in greater numbers than has previously been possible and to recognize genomic novelties in particular bird lineages. The densely sampled alignment provides a single-base-pair map of selection, has more than doubled the fraction of bases that are confidently predicted to be under conservation and reveals extensive patterns of weak selection in predominantly non-coding DNA. Our results demonstrate that increasing the diversity of genomes used in comparative studies can reveal more shared and lineage-specific variation, and improve the investigation of genomic characteristics. We anticipate that this genomic resource will offer new perspectives on evolutionary processes in cross-species comparative analyses and assist in efforts to conserve species. A dataset of the genomes of 363 species from the Bird 10,000 Genomes Project shows increased power to detect shared and lineage-specific variation, demonstrating the importance of phylogenetically diverse taxon sampling in whole-genome sequencing.Peer reviewe

Author Correction: Dense sampling of bird diversity increases power of comparative genomics

In Supplementary Table 1 of this Article, 23 samples (B10K-DU-029-32, B10K-DU-029-33, B10K-DU-029-36 to B10K-DU-029-44, B10K-DU- 029-46, B10K-DU-029-47, B10K-DU-029-49 to B10K-DU-029-53, B10K-DU- 029-75 to B10K-DU-029-77, B10K-DU-029-80, and B10K-DU-030-03; styled in boldface in the revised table) were assigned to the incorrect institution. Supplementary Table 1 has been amended to reflect the correct source institution for these samples, and associated data (tissue, museum ID/source specimen ID, site, state/province, latitude, longitude, date collected and sex) have been updated accordingly. The original table is provided as Supplementary Information to this Amendment, and the original Article has been corrected online