Data from: Would an RRS by any other name sound as RAD?

1. Sampling markers throughout a genome with restriction enzymes emerged in the 2000s as reduced representation shotgun sequencing (RRS). Rapid advances in sequencing technology have since spurred modifications of RRS, giving rise to many derivatives with unique names, such as restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RADseq). But naming conventions have often been more creative than consistent and criteria for recognizing unique methods have been unclear, resulting in a proliferation of names characterized by ambiguity. 2. We give an overview of methodological and etymological relationships among 36 restriction enzyme-based methods, and survey the consistency of references to five prominent methods in the literature. 3. We identified several instances of methodological convergence, and note that many published derivatives have modified only minor elements of parent protocols. Misattribution through ambiguous or inconsistent literature references was observed in 8.4% of journal articles citing the original one and two-enzyme RADseq and GBS, as well as SBG publications. 4. The rapid expansion of names associated with derivative protocols is confusing and, in many cases, unwarranted. We urge greater restraint in naming derivative methods and suggest general guidelines for naming that promote a balance between clarity, descriptiveness, and recognition of scientific innovation.

1. 利用限制性内切酶在基因组中开展标记采样的技术，于21世纪初以简化代表性鸟枪测序（reduced representation shotgun sequencing, RRS）的形式问世。此后，测序技术的迅猛发展推动了RRS的迭代改良，催生了众多拥有专属名称的衍生技术，例如限制性位点相关DNA测序（restriction site-associated DNA sequencing, RADseq）。但此类命名方式往往更具创意而非统一规范，且界定独特方法的标准也不甚明晰，最终导致命名模糊的技术大量涌现。
2. 本文综述了36种基于限制性内切酶的方法之间的方法学关联与词源关系，并调研了学术文献中对五种主流方法的引用规范性。
3. 研究发现多起方法学趋同案例，同时指出诸多已发表的衍生技术仅对原始实验方案进行了细微修改。在引用原始单酶、双酶RADseq、GBS以及SBG的期刊论文中，有8.4%存在因文献引用模糊或不规范导致的方法归属错误问题。
4. 与衍生技术相关的命名快速扩张引发了学术混淆，且在多数情况下并无实际必要。我们呼吁在为衍生技术命名时应更加克制，并提出通用命名指南，以期在清晰性、描述性与对科学创新的认可之间达成平衡。