Construction of relatedness matrices using genotyping-by-sequencing data

Abstract

BackgroundGenotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) is becoming an attractive alternative to array-based methods for genotyping individuals for a large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Costs can be lowered by reducing the mean sequencing depth, but this results in genotype calls of lower quality. A common analysis strategy is to filter SNPs to just those with sufficient depth, thereby greatly reducing the number of SNPs available. We investigate methods for estimating relatedness using GBS data, including results of low depth, using theoretical calculation, simulation and application to a real data set.ResultsWe show that unbiased estimates of relatedness can be obtained by using only those SNPs with genotype calls in both individuals. The expected value of this estimator is independent of the SNP depth in each individual, under a model of genotype calling that includes the special case of the two alleles being read at random. In contrast, the estimator of self-relatedness does depend on the SNP depth, and we provide a modification to provide unbiased estimates of self-relatedness. We refer to these methods of estimation as kinship using GBS with depth adjustment (KGD). The estimators can be calculated using matrix methods, which allow efficient computation. Simulation results were consistent with the methods being unbiased, and suggest that the optimal sequencing depth is around 2–4 for relatedness between individuals and 5–10 for self-relatedness. Application to a real data set revealed that some SNP filtering may still be necessary, for the exclusion of SNPs which did not behave in a Mendelian fashion. A simple graphical method (a ‘fin plot’) is given to illustrate this issue and to guide filtering parameters.ConclusionWe provide a method which gives unbiased estimates of relatedness, based on SNPs assayed by GBS, which accounts for the depth (including zero depth) of the genotype calls. This allows GBS to be applied at read depths which can be chosen to optimise the information obtained. SNPs with excess heterozygosity, often due to (partial) polyploidy or other duplications can be filtered based on a simple graphical method.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-2252-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Genetic and economic benefits of selection based on performance recording and genotyping in lower tiers of multi-tiered sheep breeding schemes

“…High implementation costs will likely moderate the practical application of the selection in GS scenarios that were investigated in this simulation study, particularly the cost of parentage testing and genomic selection. The cost of genomic technology is dropping rapidly and the expectation is that prices will further decrease, with encouraging possibilities developed in the area of genotyping by sequencing (GBS) [26]. Reduction in genotyping costs and policies which restrict genotyping to animals for which the most benefit can be generated, will likely be a key to achieve higher adoption of recording efforts and genotyping among producers.…”

A comparative assessment of SNP and microsatellite markers for assigning parentage in a socially monogamous bird

“…) for use in paternity and relatedness studies, including genotyping by sequencing (GBS; Dodds et al . ), restriction site‐associated DNA sequencing (RAD‐seq; Senn et al . ; Kess et al .…”

Genomics detects population structure within and between ocean basins in a circumpolar seabird: The white‐chinned petrel

“…Genotyping‐by‐sequencing, including library preparation, was performed at Genomnz Animal Genomics Group (AgResearch). Procedures followed Dodds et al () after Elshire et al (), with the following modifications. Briefly, genomic DNA was digested with PstI and MspI restriction enzymes (NEB R140L and R0106L; New England Biolabs).…”