GigaScienceBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Developing best practices for genotyping-by-sequencing analysis in the construction of linkage maps
Cristiane Hayumi TanigutiiD, Lucas Mitsuo TanigutiiD, Rodrigo Rampazo AmadeuiD, Jeekin LauiD, Gabriel de Siqueira GesteiraiD, Thiago de Paula OliveiraiD, Getulio Caixeta FerreiraiD, Guilherme da Silva PereiraiD, David ByrneiD, Marcelo MollinariiD, Oscar Riera‐LizarazuiD, Antônio Augusto Franco GarciaiD
Abstract
BackgroundGenotyping-by-Sequencing (GBS) provides affordable methods for genotyping hundreds of individuals using millions of markers. However, this challenges bioinformatic procedures that must overcome possible artifacts such as the bias generated by PCR duplicates and sequencing errors. Genotyping errors lead to data that deviate from what is expected from regular meiosis. This, in turn, leads to difficulties in grouping and ordering markers resulting in inflated and incorrect linkage maps. Therefore, genotyping errors can be easily detected by linkage map quality evaluations. ResultsWe developed and used the Reads2Map workflow to build linkage maps with simulated and empirical GBS data of diploid outcrossing populations. The workflows run GATK, Stacks, TASSEL, and Freebayes for SNP calling and updog, polyRAD, and SuperMASSA for genotype calling, and OneMap and GUSMap to build linkage maps. Using simulated data, we observed which genotype call software fails in identifying common errors in GBS sequencing data and proposed specific filters to better handle them. We tested whether it is possible to overcome errors in a linkage map using genotype probabilities from each software or global error rates to estimate genetic distances with an updated version of OneMap. We also evaluated the impact of segregation distortion, contaminant samples, and haplotype-based multiallelic markers in the final linkage maps. Through our evaluations, we observed that some of the approaches produce different results depending on the dataset (dataset-dependent) and others produce consistent advantageous results among them (dataset-independent). ConclusionsWe set as default in the Reads2Map workflows the approaches that showed to be dataset-independent for GBS datasets according to our results. This reduces the number required of tests to identify optimal pipelines and parameters for other empirical datasets. Using Reads2Map, users can select the pipeline and parameters that best fit their data context. The Reads2MapApp shiny app provides a graphical representation of the results to facilitate their interpretation.
- Citations
- 15
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Field percentile
- top 20%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Accounting for Errors in Low Coverage High-Throughput Sequencing Data when Constructing Genetic Maps using Biparental Outcrossed Populations
Timothy P. Bilton, Matthew Schofield, … K. G. Dodds·GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Feb 27, 2018
- GBSmode: a pipeline for haplotype-aware analysis of genotyping-by-sequencing data
Steven Andrew Yates, Bruno Studer·bioRxiv·Sep 20, 2021
- GBStools: A Unified Approach for Reduced Representation Sequencing and Genotyping
Thomas F Cooke, Muh-Ching Yee, … Eimear Kenny·PLOS GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Feb 1, 2016
- Constructing high-density linkage maps with MapDisto 2.0
Christopher Heffelfinger, Christopher Fragoso, Mathias Lorieux·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Mar 25, 2017
- Adapting genotyping-by-sequencing for rice F2 populations.
Tomoyuki Furuta, Motoyuki Ashikari, … Stefan Reuscher·G3 Genes|Genomes|GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Mar 1, 2017
- Construction of relatedness matrices using genotyping-by-sequencing data
Ken G Dodds, John C McEwan, … Shannon M Clarke·BMC GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Dec 9, 2015