» Articles » PMID: 39058708

Variant Calling and Genotyping Accuracy of DdRAD-seq: Comparison with 20X WGS in Layers

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2024 Jul 26
PMID 39058708
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) remains a costly or unsuitable method for routine genotyping of laying hens. Until now, breeding companies have been using or developing SNP chips. Nevertheless, alternatives methods based on sequencing have been developed. Among these, reduced representation sequencing approaches can offer sequencing quality and cost-effectiveness by reducing the genomic regions covered by sequencing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of double digested Restriction site Associated DNA sequencing (ddRAD-seq) to identify and genotype SNPs in laying hens, by comparison with a presumed reliable WGS approach. Firstly, the sensitivity and precision of variant calling and the genotyping reliability of ddRADseq were determined. Next, the SNP Call Rate (CRSNP) and mean depth of sequencing per SNP (DPSNP) were compared between both methods. Finally, the effect of multiple combinations of thresholds for these parameters on genotyping reliability and amount of remaining SNPs in ddRAD-seq was studied. In raw form, the ddRAD-seq identified 349,497 SNPs evenly distributed on the genome with a CRSNP of 0.55, a DPSNP of 11X and a mean genotyping reliability rate per SNP of 80%. Considering genomic regions covered by expected enzymatic fragments (EFs), the sensitivity of the ddRAD-seq was estimated at 32.4% and its precision at 96.4%. The low CRSNP and DPSNP values were explained by the detection of SNPs outside the EFs theoretically generated by the ddRAD-seq protocol. Indeed, SNPs outside the EFs had significantly lower CRSNP (0.25) and DPSNP (1X) values than SNPs within the EFs (0.7 and 17X, resp.). The study demonstrated the relationship between CRSNP, DPSNP, genotyping reliability and the number of SNPs retained, to provide a decision-support tool for defining filtration thresholds. Severe quality control over ddRAD-seq data allowed to retain a minimum of 40% of the SNPs with a CcR of 98%. Then, ddRAD-seq was defined as a suitable method for variant calling and genotyping in layers.

Citing Articles

Fine-tuning GBS data with comparison of reference and mock genome approaches for advancing genomic selection in less studied farmed species.

Fischer D, Tapio M, Bitz O, Iso-Touru T, Kause A, Tapio I BMC Genomics. 2025; 26(1):111.

PMID: 39910437 PMC: 11796084. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-025-11296-4.

References
1.
Hossain M, Natarajan S, Kim H, Jesse D, Lee C, Park J . High density linkage map construction and QTL mapping for runner production in allo-octoploid strawberry Fragaria × ananassa based on ddRAD-seq derived SNPs. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):3275. PMC: 6397268. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-39808-9. View

2.
Doekes H, Bovenhuis H, Berghof T, Peeters K, Visscher J, Mulder H . Research Note: Genome-wide association study for natural antibodies and resilience in a purebred layer chicken line. Poult Sci. 2022; 102(1):102312. PMC: 9720488. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102312. View

3.
Shirasawa K, Hirakawa H, Isobe S . Analytical workflow of double-digest restriction site-associated DNA sequencing based on empirical and in silico optimization in tomato. DNA Res. 2016; 23(2):145-53. PMC: 4833422. DOI: 10.1093/dnares/dsw004. View

4.
Gautier M, Gharbi K, Cezard T, Foucaud J, Kerdelhue C, Pudlo P . The effect of RAD allele dropout on the estimation of genetic variation within and between populations. Mol Ecol. 2012; 22(11):3165-78. DOI: 10.1111/mec.12089. View

5.
Lajmi A, Glinka F, Privman E . Optimizing ddRAD sequencing for population genomic studies with ddgRADer. Mol Ecol Resour. 2023; . DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.13870. View