Literature DB >> 29160928

Genotyping-by-sequencing for estimating relatedness in nonmodel organisms: Avoiding the trap of precise bias.

Catherine R M Attard1, Luciano B Beheregaray1, Luciana M Möller1.   

Abstract

There has been remarkably little attention to using the high resolution provided by genotyping-by-sequencing (i.e., RADseq and similar methods) for assessing relatedness in wildlife populations. A major hurdle is the genotyping error, especially allelic dropout, often found in this type of data that could lead to downward-biased, yet precise, estimates of relatedness. Here, we assess the applicability of genotyping-by-sequencing for relatedness inferences given its relatively high genotyping error rate. Individuals of known relatedness were simulated under genotyping error, allelic dropout and missing data scenarios based on an empirical ddRAD data set, and their true relatedness was compared to that estimated by seven relatedness estimators. We found that an estimator chosen through such analyses can circumvent the influence of genotyping error, with the estimator of Ritland (Genetics Research, 67, 175) shown to be unaffected by allelic dropout and to be the most accurate when there is genotyping error. We also found that the choice of estimator should not rely solely on the strength of correlation between estimated and true relatedness as a strong correlation does not necessarily mean estimates are close to true relatedness. We also demonstrated how even a large SNP data set with genotyping error (allelic dropout or otherwise) or missing data still performs better than a perfectly genotyped microsatellite data set of tens of markers. The simulation-based approach used here can be easily implemented by others on their own genotyping-by-sequencing data sets to confirm the most appropriate and powerful estimator for their data.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  double-digest restriction site-associated DNA; low coverage; next-generation sequencing; pedigree; population genomics; relationships

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29160928     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12739

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


  11 in total

1.  Urban rat races: spatial population genomics of brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) compared across multiple cities.

Authors:  Matthew Combs; Kaylee A Byers; Bruno M Ghersi; Michael J Blum; Adalgisa Caccone; Federico Costa; Chelsea G Himsworth; Jonathan L Richardson; Jason Munshi-South
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Genome-wide analysis reveals associations between climate and regional patterns of adaptive divergence and dispersal in American pikas.

Authors:  Danielle A Schmidt; Matthew D Waterhouse; Bryson M F Sjodin; Michael A Russello
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2021-09-18       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Seascape genomics of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) reveals adaptive diversity linked to regional and local oceanography.

Authors:  Andrea Barceló; Jonathan Sandoval-Castillo; Chris J Brauer; Kerstin Bilgmann; Guido J Parra; Luciano B Beheregaray; Luciana M Möller
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-07-12

4.  Whole genome amplification and exome sequencing of archived schistosome miracidia.

Authors:  Winka Le Clec'h; Frédéric D Chevalier; Marina McDew-White; Fiona Allan; Bonnie L Webster; Anouk N Gouvras; Safari Kinunghi; Louis-Albert Tchuem Tchuenté; Amadou Garba; Khalfan A Mohammed; Shaali M Ame; Joanne P Webster; David Rollinson; Aidan M Emery; Timothy J C Anderson
Journal:  Parasitology       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 3.234

5.  Genome-wide SNPs detect no evidence of genetic population structure for reef manta rays (Mobula alfredi) in southern Mozambique.

Authors:  Stephanie K Venables; Andrea D Marshall; Amelia J Armstrong; Joseph L Tomkins; W Jason Kennington
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 3.821

6.  A comparison of pedigree, genetic and genomic estimates of relatedness for informing pairing decisions in two critically endangered birds: Implications for conservation breeding programmes worldwide.

Authors:  Stephanie J Galla; Roger Moraga; Liz Brown; Simone Cleland; Marc P Hoeppner; Richard F Maloney; Anne Richardson; Lyndon Slater; Anna W Santure; Tammy E Steeves
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 5.183

7.  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

8.  From conservation genetics to conservation genomics: a genome-wide assessment of blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) in Australian feeding aggregations.

Authors:  Catherine R M Attard; Luciano B Beheregaray; Jonathan Sandoval-Castillo; K Curt S Jenner; Peter C Gill; Micheline-Nicole M Jenner; Margaret G Morrice; Luciana M Möller
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.963

9.  Genetic patterns in peripheral marine populations of the fusilier fish Caesio cuning within the Kuroshio Current.

Authors:  Amanda S Ackiss; Christopher E Bird; Yuichi Akita; Mudjekeewis D Santos; Katsunori Tachihara; Kent E Carpenter
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  Early queen joining and long-term queen associations in polygyne colonies of an invasive wasp revealed by longitudinal genetic analysis.

Authors:  Giulia Scarparo; Madison Sankovitz; Kevin J Loope; Erin Wilson-Rankin; Jessica Purcell
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 5.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.