2018
DOI: 10.1101/274407
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Machine learning as an effective method for identifying true SNPs in polyploid plants

Abstract: 1Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) have many advantages as molecular markers since 1 2 they are ubiquitous and co-dominant. However, the discovery of true SNPs especially in 1 3 polyploid species is difficult. Peanut is an allopolyploid, which has a very low rate of true SNP leveraged to train machine learning models to select true SNPs straight from sequence data.

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

2
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Zhou et al ( 2014 ) used SOAP software (Li et al, 2009 ) for SNP calling while Liang et al ( 2017 ) used the Bowtie2 method (Langmead and Salzberg, 2012 ) for alignment to reference genome. We used the SWEEP software (Clevenger and Ozias-Akins, 2015 ) along with SNP-ML (Korani et al, 2018 ) for SNP identification. All reads were aligned to the reference genomes ( http://peanutbase.org ) and SNPs were called using Samtools mpileup and SNP-ML filtering.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Zhou et al ( 2014 ) used SOAP software (Li et al, 2009 ) for SNP calling while Liang et al ( 2017 ) used the Bowtie2 method (Langmead and Salzberg, 2012 ) for alignment to reference genome. We used the SWEEP software (Clevenger and Ozias-Akins, 2015 ) along with SNP-ML (Korani et al, 2018 ) for SNP identification. All reads were aligned to the reference genomes ( http://peanutbase.org ) and SNPs were called using Samtools mpileup and SNP-ML filtering.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For SNP calling, two methods were used: First, SNPs were called between the parents of the RIL population using Samtools mpileup. Resulting SNPs were then filtered using SNP-ML (Korani et al, 2018 ). The following command for SNP-ML was used - SNP-ML -c 0.7 -i input.vcf -iM peanut_DNA -o outputs.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The genetic linkage map was constructed using Joinmap v4.1 [ 48 ] maximum likelihood (ML) algorithm with a minimum LOD of 3.0 and the Haldane mapping function. The graphical representation of the linkage maps was generated through Mapchart v2.3 [ 49 ]. Confirmation of the loci positions was done as previously described [ 47 ] with few modifications (BLASTN (e value < 1 × 10 − 18 ) and mismatch of less than 2).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, for allopolyploid and segmental allopolyploid lineages, divergence between the parental subgenomes means that identifying homoeologous positions for genotyping is more difficult, and it is further complicated by having to distinguish between SNPs within a subgenome and fixed differences between subgenomes. Models to separately estimate SNPs within allopolyploid subgenomes have been proposed and used in a variety of crop species (Blischak et al 2018a;Clevenger and Ozias-Akins 2015;Clevenger et al 2018;Korani et al 2019;Clark et al 2019), but they typically require knowledge about all parental subgenomes. If the nature of a polyploid's formation mode is unknown or if parental information is not available for an allopolyploid, then these approaches are not able to be used.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%