Nicholas P Howard1,2, Michela Troggio3, Charles-Eric Durel4, Hélène Muranty4, Caroline Denancé4, Luca Bianco3, John Tillman2, Eric van de Weg5. 1. Institut für Biologie und Umweltwissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Univ., Oldenburg, Germany. 2. Department of Horticultural Science, Univ. of Minnesota, St Paul, USA. 3. Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all'Adige, TN, Italy. 4. Université d'Angers, Institut Agro, INRAE, IRHS, SFR 4207 QuaSaV, Beaucouzé, France. 5. Department of Plant Breeding, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. eric.vandeweg@wur.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array technology has been increasingly used to generate large quantities of SNP data for use in genetic studies. As new arrays are developed to take advantage of new technology and of improved probe design using new genome sequence and panel data, a need to integrate data from different arrays and array platforms has arisen. This study was undertaken in view of our need for an integrated high-quality dataset of Illumina Infinium® 20 K and Affymetrix Axiom® 480 K SNP array data in apple (Malus × domestica). In this study, we qualify and quantify the compatibility of SNP calling, defined as SNP calls that are both accurate and concordant, across both arrays by two approaches. First, the concordance of SNP calls was evaluated using a set of 417 duplicate individuals genotyped on both arrays starting from a set of 10,295 robust SNPs on the Infinium array. Next, the accuracy of the SNP calls was evaluated on additional germplasm (n = 3141) from both arrays using Mendelian inconsistent and consistent errors across thousands of pedigree links. While performing this work, we took the opportunity to evaluate reasons for probe failure and observed discordant SNP calls. RESULTS: Concordance among the duplicate individuals was on average of 97.1% across 10,295 SNPs. Of these SNPs, 35% had discordant call(s) that were further curated, leading to a final set of 8412 (81.7%) SNPs that were deemed compatible. Compatibility was highly influenced by the presence of alternate probe binding locations and secondary polymorphisms. The impact of the latter was highly influenced by their number and proximity to the 3' end of the probe. CONCLUSIONS: The Infinium and Axiom SNP array data were mostly compatible. However, data integration required intense data filtering and curation. This work resulted in a workflow and information that may be of use in other data integration efforts. Such an in-depth analysis of array concordance and accuracy as ours has not been previously described in the literature and will be useful in future work on SNP array data integration and interpretation, and in probe/platform development.
BACKGROUND: Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array technology has been increasingly used to generate large quantities of SNP data for use in genetic studies. As new arrays are developed to take advantage of new technology and of improved probe design using new genome sequence and panel data, a need to integrate data from different arrays and array platforms has arisen. This study was undertaken in view of our need for an integrated high-quality dataset of Illumina Infinium® 20 K and Affymetrix Axiom® 480 K SNP array data in apple (Malus × domestica). In this study, we qualify and quantify the compatibility of SNP calling, defined as SNP calls that are both accurate and concordant, across both arrays by two approaches. First, the concordance of SNP calls was evaluated using a set of 417 duplicate individuals genotyped on both arrays starting from a set of 10,295 robust SNPs on the Infinium array. Next, the accuracy of the SNP calls was evaluated on additional germplasm (n = 3141) from both arrays using Mendelian inconsistent and consistent errors across thousands of pedigree links. While performing this work, we took the opportunity to evaluate reasons for probe failure and observed discordant SNP calls. RESULTS: Concordance among the duplicate individuals was on average of 97.1% across 10,295 SNPs. Of these SNPs, 35% had discordant call(s) that were further curated, leading to a final set of 8412 (81.7%) SNPs that were deemed compatible. Compatibility was highly influenced by the presence of alternate probe binding locations and secondary polymorphisms. The impact of the latter was highly influenced by their number and proximity to the 3' end of the probe. CONCLUSIONS: The Infinium and Axiom SNP array data were mostly compatible. However, data integration required intense data filtering and curation. This work resulted in a workflow and information that may be of use in other data integration efforts. Such an in-depth analysis of array concordance and accuracy as ours has not been previously described in the literature and will be useful in future work on SNP array data integration and interpretation, and in probe/platform development.
Entities:
Keywords:
Genotyping; Malus; SNP Array; Single nucleotide polymorphism
Authors: Nicolas Daccord; Jean-Marc Celton; Gareth Linsmith; Claude Becker; Nathalie Choisne; Elio Schijlen; Henri van de Geest; Luca Bianco; Diego Micheletti; Riccardo Velasco; Erica Adele Di Pierro; Jérôme Gouzy; D Jasper G Rees; Philippe Guérif; Hélène Muranty; Charles-Eric Durel; François Laurens; Yves Lespinasse; Sylvain Gaillard; Sébastien Aubourg; Hadi Quesneville; Detlef Weigel; Eric van de Weg; Michela Troggio; Etienne Bucher Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: David Chagné; Ross N Crowhurst; Michela Troggio; Mark W Davey; Barbara Gilmore; Cindy Lawley; Stijn Vanderzande; Roger P Hellens; Satish Kumar; Alessandro Cestaro; Riccardo Velasco; Dorrie Main; Jasper D Rees; Amy Iezzoni; Todd Mockler; Larry Wilhelm; Eric Van de Weg; Susan E Gardiner; Nahla Bassil; Cameron Peace Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mario Di Guardo; Marco C A M Bink; Walter Guerra; Thomas Letschka; Lidia Lozano; Nicola Busatto; Lara Poles; Alice Tadiello; Luca Bianco; Richard G F Visser; Eric van de Weg; Fabrizio Costa Journal: J Exp Bot Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.992
Authors: Satish Kumar; David Chagné; Marco C A M Bink; Richard K Volz; Claire Whitworth; Charmaine Carlisle Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mario Di Guardo; Diego Micheletti; Luca Bianco; Herma J J Koehorst-van Putten; Sara Longhi; Fabrizio Costa; Maria J Aranzana; Riccardo Velasco; Pere Arús; Michela Troggio; Eric W van de Weg Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Luca Bianco; Alessandro Cestaro; Daniel James Sargent; Elisa Banchi; Sophia Derdak; Mario Di Guardo; Silvio Salvi; Johannes Jansen; Roberto Viola; Ivo Gut; Francois Laurens; David Chagné; Riccardo Velasco; Eric van de Weg; Michela Troggio Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alix Allard; Marco C A M Bink; Sébastien Martinez; Jean-Jacques Kelner; Jean-Michel Legave; Mario di Guardo; Erica A Di Pierro; François Laurens; Eric W van de Weg; Evelyne Costes Journal: J Exp Bot Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 6.992
Authors: Guilherme B Neumann; Paula Korkuć; Danny Arends; Manuel J Wolf; Katharina May; Monika Reißmann; Salma Elzaki; Sven König; Gudrun A Brockmann Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 3.969