A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy

Abstract Background Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), a method to identify genetic variants and quickly genotype samples, reduces genome complexity by using restriction enzymes to divide the genome into fragments whose ends are sequenced on short-read sequencing platforms. While cost-effective, this m...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Daniel P. Wickland, Gopal Battu, Karen A. Hudson, Brian W. Diers, Matthew E. Hudson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2017-12-01
Series:BMC Bioinformatics
Subjects:
GBS
WGS
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12859-017-2000-6
id doaj-46b3372ef31a43f9b5825dd63b520386
record_format Article
spelling doaj-46b3372ef31a43f9b5825dd63b5203862020-11-24T20:46:28ZengBMCBMC Bioinformatics1471-21052017-12-0118111210.1186/s12859-017-2000-6A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSyDaniel P. Wickland0Gopal Battu1Karen A. Hudson2Brian W. Diers3Matthew E. Hudson4Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSDA-ARS Crop Production and Pest Control Research UnitDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignAbstract Background Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), a method to identify genetic variants and quickly genotype samples, reduces genome complexity by using restriction enzymes to divide the genome into fragments whose ends are sequenced on short-read sequencing platforms. While cost-effective, this method produces extensive missing data and requires complex bioinformatics analysis. GBS is most commonly used on crop plant genomes, and because crop plants have highly variable ploidy and repeat content, the performance of GBS analysis software can vary by target organism. Here we focus our analysis on soybean, a polyploid crop with a highly duplicated genome, relatively little public GBS data and few dedicated tools. Results We compared the performance of five GBS pipelines using low-coverage Illumina sequence data from three soybean populations. To address issues identified with existing methods, we developed GB-eaSy, a GBS bioinformatics workflow that incorporates widely used genomics tools, parallelization and automation to increase the accuracy and accessibility of GBS data analysis. Compared to other GBS pipelines, GB-eaSy rapidly and accurately identified the greatest number of SNPs, with SNP calls closely concordant with whole-genome sequencing of selected lines. Across all five GBS analysis platforms, SNP calls showed unexpectedly low convergence but generally high accuracy, indicating that the workflows arrived at largely complementary sets of valid SNP calls on the low-coverage data analyzed. Conclusions We show that GB-eaSy is approximately as good as, or better than, other leading software solutions in the accuracy, yield and missing data fraction of variant calling, as tested on low-coverage genomic data from soybean. It also performs well relative to other solutions in terms of the run time and disk space required. In addition, GB-eaSy is built from existing open-source, modular software packages that are regularly updated and commonly used, making it straightforward to install and maintain. While GB-eaSy outperformed other individual methods on the datasets analyzed, our findings suggest that a comprehensive approach integrating the results from multiple GBS bioinformatics pipelines may be the optimal strategy to obtain the largest, most highly accurate SNP yield possible from low-coverage polyploid sequence data.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12859-017-2000-6GBSWGSBioinformatics pipelinesVariant callingSoybeanCrops
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Daniel P. Wickland
Gopal Battu
Karen A. Hudson
Brian W. Diers
Matthew E. Hudson
spellingShingle Daniel P. Wickland
Gopal Battu
Karen A. Hudson
Brian W. Diers
Matthew E. Hudson
A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy
BMC Bioinformatics
GBS
WGS
Bioinformatics pipelines
Variant calling
Soybean
Crops
author_facet Daniel P. Wickland
Gopal Battu
Karen A. Hudson
Brian W. Diers
Matthew E. Hudson
author_sort Daniel P. Wickland
title A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy
title_short A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy
title_full A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy
title_fullStr A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy
title_sort comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, gb-easy
publisher BMC
series BMC Bioinformatics
issn 1471-2105
publishDate 2017-12-01
description Abstract Background Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), a method to identify genetic variants and quickly genotype samples, reduces genome complexity by using restriction enzymes to divide the genome into fragments whose ends are sequenced on short-read sequencing platforms. While cost-effective, this method produces extensive missing data and requires complex bioinformatics analysis. GBS is most commonly used on crop plant genomes, and because crop plants have highly variable ploidy and repeat content, the performance of GBS analysis software can vary by target organism. Here we focus our analysis on soybean, a polyploid crop with a highly duplicated genome, relatively little public GBS data and few dedicated tools. Results We compared the performance of five GBS pipelines using low-coverage Illumina sequence data from three soybean populations. To address issues identified with existing methods, we developed GB-eaSy, a GBS bioinformatics workflow that incorporates widely used genomics tools, parallelization and automation to increase the accuracy and accessibility of GBS data analysis. Compared to other GBS pipelines, GB-eaSy rapidly and accurately identified the greatest number of SNPs, with SNP calls closely concordant with whole-genome sequencing of selected lines. Across all five GBS analysis platforms, SNP calls showed unexpectedly low convergence but generally high accuracy, indicating that the workflows arrived at largely complementary sets of valid SNP calls on the low-coverage data analyzed. Conclusions We show that GB-eaSy is approximately as good as, or better than, other leading software solutions in the accuracy, yield and missing data fraction of variant calling, as tested on low-coverage genomic data from soybean. It also performs well relative to other solutions in terms of the run time and disk space required. In addition, GB-eaSy is built from existing open-source, modular software packages that are regularly updated and commonly used, making it straightforward to install and maintain. While GB-eaSy outperformed other individual methods on the datasets analyzed, our findings suggest that a comprehensive approach integrating the results from multiple GBS bioinformatics pipelines may be the optimal strategy to obtain the largest, most highly accurate SNP yield possible from low-coverage polyploid sequence data.
topic GBS
WGS
Bioinformatics pipelines
Variant calling
Soybean
Crops
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12859-017-2000-6
work_keys_str_mv AT danielpwickland acomparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT gopalbattu acomparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT karenahudson acomparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT brianwdiers acomparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT matthewehudson acomparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT danielpwickland comparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT gopalbattu comparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT karenahudson comparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT brianwdiers comparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
AT matthewehudson comparisonofgenotypingbysequencinganalysismethodsonlowcoveragecropdatasetsshowsadvantagesofanewworkflowgbeasy
_version_ 1716812483648290816