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

被引:170
作者
Scheben, Armin
Batley, Jacqueline
Edwards, David [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Sch Plant Biol, Perth, WA, Australia
关键词
Breeding; Genomics; genotyping-by-sequencing; reduced-representation sequencing; whole-genome resequencing; MARKER-ASSISTED SELECTION; HYBRID ERROR-CORRECTION; WIDE ASSOCIATION; DE-NOVO; LINKAGE MAP; NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; AGRONOMIC TRAITS; COMPLEX TRAITS; EXOME CAPTURE; RNA-SEQ;
D O I
10.1111/pbi.12645
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
In the last decade, the revolution in sequencing technologies has deeply impacted crop genotyping practice. New methods allowing rapid, high-throughput genotyping of entire crop populations have proliferated and opened the door to wider use of molecular tools in plant breeding. These new genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) methods include over a dozen reduced-representation sequencing (RRS) approaches and at least four whole-genome resequencing (WGR) approaches. The diversity of methods available, each often producing different types of data at different cost, can make selection of the best-suited method seem a daunting task. We review the most common genotyping methods used today and compare their suitability for linkage mapping, genomewide association studies (GWAS), marker-assisted and genomic selection and genome assembly and improvement in crops with various genome sizes and complexity. Furthermore, we give an outline of bioinformatics tools for analysis of genotyping data. WGR is well suited to genotyping biparental cross populations with complex, small- to moderate-sized genomes and provides the lowest cost per marker data point. RRS approaches differ in their suitability for various tasks, but demonstrate similar costs per marker data point. These approaches are generally better suited for de novo applications and more cost-effective when genotyping populations with large genomes or high heterozygosity. We expect that although RRS approaches will remain the most cost-effective for some time, WGR will become more widespread for crop genotyping as sequencing costs continue to decrease.
引用
收藏
页码:149 / 161
页数:13
相关论文
共 165 条
  • [41] Genotyping-by-Sequencing (GBS): A Novel, Efficient and Cost-Effective Genotyping Method for Cattle Using Next-Generation Sequencing
    De Donato, Marcos
    Peters, Sunday O.
    Mitchell, Sharon E.
    Hussain, Tanveer
    Imumorin, Ikhide G.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (05):
  • [42] Dent R, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI [10.1371/journal.pone.0036889, 10.1371/journal.pone.0037135]
  • [43] A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data
    DePristo, Mark A.
    Banks, Eric
    Poplin, Ryan
    Garimella, Kiran V.
    Maguire, Jared R.
    Hartl, Christopher
    Philippakis, Anthony A.
    del Angel, Guillermo
    Rivas, Manuel A.
    Hanna, Matt
    McKenna, Aaron
    Fennell, Tim J.
    Kernytsky, Andrew M.
    Sivachenko, Andrey Y.
    Cibulskis, Kristian
    Gabriel, Stacey B.
    Altshuler, David
    Daly, Mark J.
    [J]. NATURE GENETICS, 2011, 43 (05) : 491 - +
  • [44] Deschamps Stephane, 2012, Biology (Basel), V1, P460, DOI 10.3390/biology1030460
  • [45] Accessing complex crop genomes with next-generation sequencing
    Edwards, David
    Batley, Jacqueline
    Snowdon, Rod J.
    [J]. THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS, 2013, 126 (01) : 1 - 11
  • [46] A Robust, Simple Genotyping-by-Sequencing (GBS) Approach for High Diversity Species
    Elshire, Robert J.
    Glaubitz, Jeffrey C.
    Sun, Qi
    Poland, Jesse A.
    Kawamoto, Ken
    Buckler, Edward S.
    Mitchell, Sharon E.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2011, 6 (05):
  • [47] Nucleotide polymorphism and copy number variant detection using exome capture and next-generation sequencing in the polyploid grass Panicum virgatum
    Evans, Joseph
    Kim, Jeongwoon
    Childs, Kevin L.
    Vaillancourt, Brieanne
    Crisovan, Emily
    Nandety, Aruna
    Gerhardt, Daniel J.
    Richmond, Todd A.
    Jeddeloh, Jeffrey A.
    Kaeppler, Shawn M.
    Casler, Michael D.
    Buell, C. Robin
    [J]. PLANT JOURNAL, 2014, 79 (06) : 993 - 1008
  • [48] MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report
    Ewels, Philip
    Magnusson, Mans
    Lundin, Sverker
    Kaller, Max
    [J]. BIOINFORMATICS, 2016, 32 (19) : 3047 - 3048
  • [49] Tools for mapping high-throughput sequencing data
    Fonseca, Nuno A.
    Rung, Johan
    Brazma, Alvis
    Marioni, John C.
    [J]. BIOINFORMATICS, 2012, 28 (24) : 3169 - 3177
  • [50] Marker-Assisted Selection in Tomato Breeding
    Foolad, Majid R.
    Panthee, Dilip R.
    [J]. CRITICAL REVIEWS IN PLANT SCIENCES, 2012, 31 (02) : 93 - 123