Literature DB >> 26946083

Finding the right coverage: the impact of coverage and sequence quality on single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping error rates.

Emily D Fountain1, Jonathan N Pauli1, Brendan N Reid1, Per J Palsbøll2, M Zachariah Peery1.   

Abstract

Restriction-enzyme-based sequencing methods enable the genotyping of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) loci in nonmodel organisms. However, in contrast to traditional genetic markers, genotyping error rates in SNPs derived from restriction-enzyme-based methods remain largely unknown. Here, we estimated genotyping error rates in SNPs genotyped with double digest RAD sequencing from Mendelian incompatibilities in known mother-offspring dyads of Hoffman's two-toed sloth (Choloepus hoffmanni) across a range of coverage and sequence quality criteria, for both reference-aligned and de novo-assembled data sets. Genotyping error rates were more sensitive to coverage than sequence quality and low coverage yielded high error rates, particularly in de novo-assembled data sets. For example, coverage ≥5 yielded median genotyping error rates of ≥0.03 and ≥0.11 in reference-aligned and de novo-assembled data sets, respectively. Genotyping error rates declined to ≤0.01 in reference-aligned data sets with a coverage ≥30, but remained ≥0.04 in the de novo-assembled data sets. We observed approximately 10- and 13-fold declines in the number of loci sampled in the reference-aligned and de novo-assembled data sets when coverage was increased from ≥5 to ≥30 at quality score ≥30, respectively. Finally, we assessed the effects of genotyping coverage on a common population genetic application, parentage assignments, and showed that the proportion of incorrectly assigned maternities was relatively high at low coverage. Overall, our results suggest that the trade-off between sample size and genotyping error rates be considered prior to building sequencing libraries, reporting genotyping error rates become standard practice, and that effects of genotyping errors on inference be evaluated in restriction-enzyme-based SNP studies.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mendelian incompatibility; ddRAD; genotyping error; next-generation sequencing; single nucleotide polymorphism

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26946083     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour        ISSN: 1755-098X            Impact factor:   7.090


  12 in total

1.  A bioinformatic pipeline for identifying informative SNP panels for parentage assignment from RADseq data.

Authors:  Kimberly R Andrews; Jennifer R Adams; E Frances Cassirer; Raina K Plowright; Colby Gardner; Maggie Dwire; Paul A Hohenlohe; Lisette P Waits
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 7.090

2.  RAD sequencing resolves fine-scale population structure in a benthic invertebrate: implications for understanding phenotypic plasticity.

Authors:  David L J Vendrami; Luca Telesca; Hannah Weigand; Martina Weiss; Katie Fawcett; Katrin Lehman; M S Clark; Florian Leese; Carrie McMinn; Heather Moore; Joseph I Hoffman
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 2.963

3.  Phylogenomic Insights into Mouse Evolution Using a Pseudoreference Approach.

Authors:  Brice A J Sarver; Sara Keeble; Ted Cosart; Priscilla K Tucker; Matthew D Dean; Jeffrey M Good
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.416

4.  Single-nucleotide polymorphism discovery and panel characterization in the African forest elephant.

Authors:  Stéphanie Bourgeois; Helen Senn; Jenny Kaden; John B Taggart; Rob Ogden; Kathryn J Jeffery; Nils Bunnefeld; Katharine Abernethy; Ross McEwing
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  RAD Sequencing and a Hybrid Antarctic Fur Seal Genome Assembly Reveal Rapidly Decaying Linkage Disequilibrium, Global Population Structure and Evidence for Inbreeding.

Authors:  Emily Humble; Kanchon K Dasmahapatra; Alvaro Martinez-Barrio; Inês Gregório; Jaume Forcada; Ann-Christin Polikeit; Simon D Goldsworthy; Michael E Goebel; Jörn Kalinowski; Jochen B W Wolf; Joseph I Hoffman
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.154

6.  Parentage and relatedness reconstruction in Pinus sylvestris using genotyping-by-sequencing.

Authors:  David Hall; Wei Zhao; Ulfstand Wennström; Bengt Andersson Gull; Xiao-Ru Wang
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 7.  Genotyping-by-sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application.

Authors:  Armin Scheben; Jacqueline Batley; David Edwards
Journal:  Plant Biotechnol J       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 9.803

8.  Population genomics through time provides insights into the consequences of decline and rapid demographic recovery through head-starting in a Galapagos giant tortoise.

Authors:  Evelyn L Jensen; Danielle L Edwards; Ryan C Garrick; Joshua M Miller; James P Gibbs; Linda J Cayot; Washington Tapia; Adalgisa Caccone; Michael A Russello
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 5.183

9.  How "simple" methodological decisions affect interpretation of population structure based on reduced representation library DNA sequencing: A case study using the lake whitefish.

Authors:  Carly F Graham; Douglas R Boreham; Richard G Manzon; Wendylee Stott; Joanna Y Wilson; Christopher M Somers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Genome-wide analysis of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L., from Brassica crops and wild host plants reveals no genetic structure in Australia.

Authors:  Kym D Perry; Michael A Keller; Simon W Baxter
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 4.996

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.