| Literature DB >> 25302600 |
Daniela Holtgräwe1, Thomas Rosleff Sörensen1, Prisca Viehöver1, Jessica Schneider1, Britta Schulz2, Dietrich Borchardt2, Thomas Kraft3, Heinz Himmelbauer4, Bernd Weisshaar1.
Abstract
Molecular markers are a highly valuable tool for creating genetic maps. Like in many other crops, sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) breeding is increasingly supported by the application of such genetic markers. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) based markers have a high potential for automated analysis and high-throughput genotyping. We developed a bioinformatics workflow that uses Sanger and 2nd-generation sequence data for detection, evaluation and verification of new transcript-associated SNPs from sugar beet. RNAseq data from one parent of an established mapping population were produced by 454-FLX sequencing and compared to Sanger ESTs derived from the other parent. The workflow established for SNP detection considers the quality values of both types of reads, provides polymorphic alignments as well as selection criteria for reliable SNP detection and allows painless generation of new genetic markers within genes. We obtained a total of 14,323 genic SNPs and InDels. According to empirically optimised settings for the quality parameters, we classified these SNPs into four usability categories. Validation of a subset of the in silico detected SNPs by genotyping the mapping population indicated a high success rate of the SNP detection. Finally, a total of 307 new markers were integrated with existing data into a new genetic map of sugar beet which offers improved resolution and the integration of terminal markers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25302600 PMCID: PMC4193868 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Workflow of data processing for polymorphic site detection.
The analysis steps (marked [1] to [9]) executed from the two starting data sets to the polymorphic alignments are summarised.
Evaluation of alignments for polymorphic site detection.
| K1P1-sequences aligned to K1P2-sequences | |||||||
| contig alignments | singlet alignments | total | |||||
|
| total number alignments | 2,360 | 100% | 6,086 | 100% | 8,446 | 100% |
| total length (bp) | 2,407,018 | 100% | 3,789,889 | 100% | 6,196,907 | 100% | |
| avg. length (bp) | 1,019 | 622 | 734 | ||||
|
| alignments too polymorphic | 692 | 29% | 1,503 | 25% | 2,195 | 26% |
| total length (bp) | 776,042 | 932,616 | 1,708,658 | ||||
|
| monomorphic alignments | 274 | 12% | 1,281 | 21% | 1555 | 18% |
| total length (bp) | 243,577 | 799,965 | 1,043,542 | ||||
|
| polymorphic alignments | 1,394 | 59% | 3,302 | 54% | 4,696 | 56% |
| total length (bp) | 1,387,399 | 2,057,308 | 3,444,707 | ||||
|
| polymorphisms | 6,472 | 7,870 | 14,323 | |||
|
| total SNPs | 5,759 | 6,298 | 12,057 | |||
| single base SNPs | 4,580 | 5,091 | |||||
| multibase SNPs | 1,179 | 1,207 | |||||
| avg. length multibase SNPs (bp) | 2.8 | 2.4 | |||||
|
| total InDels | 704 | 1,562 | 2,266 | |||
| single base InDels | 551 | 1,399 | |||||
| multibase InDels | 153 | 163 | |||||
| avg. length multibase InDels (bp) | 20.9 | 3.8 | |||||
|
| polymorphic bases raw in | 11,675 | 10,031 | 21,706 | |||
|
| frequency of polymorphisms in | 1/139 | 1/285 | 1/207 | |||
*Excluding 19 cases with uncertain mismatch typing due to lower sequence quality.
Alignments between Sanger sequence reads (K1P1) and either K1P2-singlets or K1P2-contigs were created and evaluated with regard to the presence and type of polymorphic sites. Numbers in brackets reflect successive analysis steps.
Scoring of polymorphisms.
| SNPs (incl. multi-base) | InDels | SNPs & InDels | Loci (best status) | Category | |
| Total | 12,057 | 2,266 | 14,323 | 2,265 | |
| All tests succeeded | 5,424 | 1,086 | 6,510 | 1,562 | “good” |
| Test A succeeded, test B and/or C failed | 2,529 | 463 | 2,992 | 291 | “usable” |
| Test A failed, test B and/or C succeeded | 4,055 | 715 | 4770 | 410 | “uncertain” |
| All tests failed | 49 | 2 | 51 | 2 | “bad” |
Polymorphic sites were categorised according to three criteria as described in the methods section. Test A: Neighbourhood Quality Standard, average score of polymorphic bases> = 20, average score of 5 bases up-/downstream> = 15; test B: minimal distance to border> = 80 bp; test C: polymorphism length < = 3 bp.
Detailed results of the marker generation.
| All tests positive | Failed NQS | |||
| Selected and screened polymorphisms | 282 | 100% | 43 | 100% |
| Successful genotyped polymorphisms | 211 | 75% | 14 | 33% |
| Converted to markers | 199 | 71% | 14 | 33% |
All tests comprises test A: Neighbourhood Quality Standard; test B: minimal distance to border and test C: polymorphism length. Neighbourhood Quality Standard (NQS) is a possible criterion to evaluate the reliability. More details can be found in Materials and Methods and Table 2.
Comparison of marker number and genetic distance between genetic maps.
| previous genetic map (BeetMap) | current genetic map (BeetMap-3) | marker number comparison | ||||
| Chr. | cM | # marker | cM | # marker | added | deleted |
| 1 | 93.2 | 85 | 103.0 | 111 | 28 | 2 |
| 2 | 87.2 | 82 | 130.2 | 114 | 32 | 0 |
| 3 | 107.5 | 89 | 116.2 | 112 | 25 | 2 |
| 4 | 108.0 | 86 | 123.6 | 115 | 30 | 1 |
| 5 | 101.8 | 145 | 147.8 | 199 | 54 | 0 |
| 6 | 102.7 | 147 | 137.9 | 181 | 34 | 0 |
| 7 | 101.9 | 132 | 146.6 | 171 | 39 | 0 |
| 8 | 92.5 | 90 | 110.5 | 119 | 29 | 0 |
| 9 | 92.0 | 127 | 125.6 | 163 | 36 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total marker numbers and genetic distances (cM) are presented for each of the nine sugar beet chromosomes for the previous published [7] and for the current map constructed within this study. Added and deleted markers are itemised separately. Added markers belong to this study, deleted markers are from the previous BeetMap.
Figure 2Display of chromosome 1 comparing the current and former genetic map derived from the KWS1 mapping population.
The new map designated BeetMap-3 is shown on the left, the former BeetMap on the right. Names of markers added by this study are highlighted in green, excluded markers are marked in red. Terminal marker were named by using the prefix “KWS_”. Cosegregating markers are indicated by identical map positions.