PLoS ONEGenomicsPeer-reviewed journal article
Variant calling and genotyping accuracy of ddRAD-seq: comparison with 20X WGS in layers
Mathilde DoubletiD, Fabien DegaleziD, Sandrine LagarrigueiD, Laëtitia LagoutteiD, Élise GuéretiD, Sophie AllaisiD, Frédéric LecerfiD
Abstract
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) remains a costly or unsuitable method for routine genotyping of laying hens methods, thus alternatives have been developed. Among these, reduced representation sequencing approaches can offer both sequencing quality and cost-effectiveness by reducing the genomic regions covered by sequencing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of double digested Restriction site Associated DNA sequencing (ddRAD-seq) to identify and genotype SNPs in laying hens, by comparison with a presumed reliable WGS approach. Firstly, the sensitivity and precision of variant calling and the genotyping reliability of ddRADseq were determined. Next, the SNP Call Rate (CRSNP) and mean depth of sequencing per SNP (DPSNP) were compared between both methods. Finally, the effect of multiple combinations of thresholds for these parameters on genotyping reliability and amount of remaining SNPs in ddRAD-seq was studied. In raw form, the ddRAD-seq identified 349,497 SNPs evenly distributed on the genome with a CRSNP of 0.55, a DPSNP of 11X and a mean genotyping reliability rate per SNP of 80%. Considering genomic regions covered by expected enzymatic fragments (EFs), the sensitivity of the ddRAD-seq was estimated at 32.4% and its precision at 96.4%. The low CRSNP and DPSNP values were explained by the detection of SNPs outside the EFs theoretically generated by the ddRAD-seq protocol. Indeed, SNPs outside the EFs had significantly lower CRSNP (0.25) and DPSNP (1X) values than SNPs within the EFs (0.7 and 17X, resp.). The study demonstrated the relationship between CRSNP, DPSNP, genotyping reliability and the number of SNPs retained, to provide a decision-support tool for defining filtration thresholds. Severe quality control over ddRAD-seq data allowed to retain a minimum of 40% of the SNPs with a CcR of 98%. Then, ddRAD-seq was defined as a suitable method for variant calling and genotyping in layers.
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- research focus: variant calling
- research focus: genome assembly
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: statistical model
- approach: benchmark study
- Citations
- 16
- FWCI
- 4.23
- Field percentile
- top 5%
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
- Innovations in double digest restriction-site associated DNA sequencing (ddRAD-Seq) method for more efficient SNP identification
Zenaida V. Magbanua, Chuan-Yu Hsu, … Daniel G. Peterson·Analytical BiochemistryPeer-reviewed·Dec 5, 2022
- Double-digest RAD-sequencing: do wet and dry protocol parameters impact biological results?
Tristan Cumer, Charles Pouchon, … Thibaut Capblancq·Molecular Genetics and GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Jan 19, 2021
- Double-digest RAD sequencing outperforms microsatellite loci at assigning paternity and estimating relatedness: a proof of concept in a highly promiscuous bird
D. J. Thrasher, B. G. Butcher, … I. J. Lovette·bioRxiv·Feb 15, 2018
- Adapterama IV: Sequence Capture of Dual-digest RADseq Libraries with Identifiable Duplicates (RADcap)
Sandra Hoffberg, Troy J Kieran, … Travis C Glenn·bioRxiv·Apr 20, 2016
- Optimising ddRAD sequencing for population genomic studies with ddgRADer
Aparna Lajmi, Felix Glinka, Eyal Privman·Molecular Ecology ResourcesPeer-reviewed·Sep 21, 2023
- A Cost-effective, High-throughput, Highly Accurate Genotyping Method for Outbred Populations
Denghui Chen, Apurva S. Chitre, … Abraham A. Palmer·G3 Genes Genomes GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Dec 13, 2024