4.6 Article

Expected Genotype Quality and Diploidized Marker Data from Genotyping-by-Sequencing of Urochloa spp. Tetraploids

期刊

PLANT GENOME
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3835/plantgenome2019.01.0002

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  3. Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) is a well-established marker technology in diploids, the development of best practices for tetraploid species is a topic of current research. We determined the theoretical relationship between read depth and the phred-scaled probability of genotype misclassification conditioned on the true genotype, which we call expected genotype quality (EGQ). If the GBS method has 0.5% allelic error, then 17 reads are needed to classify simplex tetraploids as heterozygous with 95% accuracy (EGQ = 13) vs. 61 reads to determine allele dosage. We developed an R script to convert tetraploid GBS data in variant call format (VCF) into diploidized genotype calls and applied it to 267 interspecific hybrids of the tetraploid forage grass Urochloa. When reads were aligned to a mock reference genome created from GBS data of the Urochloa brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster cultivar Marandu, 25,678 biallelic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) were discovered, compared with similar to 3000 SNPs when aligning to the closest true reference genomes, Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. and S. italica (L.) P. Beauv. Cross-validation revealed that missing genotypes were imputed by the random forest method with a median accuracy of 0.85 regardless of heterozygote frequency. Using the Urochloa spp. hybrids, we illustrated how filtering samples based only on genotype quality (GQ) creates genotype bias; a depth threshold based on EGQ is also needed regardless of whether genotypes are called using a diploidized or allele dosage model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据