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 50 条
  • [31] A targeted genotyping-by-sequencing tool (Rapture) for genomics-assisted breeding in oat
    Bekele, Wubishet A.
    Itaya, Asuka
    Boyle, Brian
    Yan, Weikai
    Fetch, Jennifer Mitchell
    Tinker, Nicholas A.
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS, 2020, 133 (02) : 653 - 664
  • [32] Application of Genotyping-by-Sequencing for mapping disease resistance in grapevine breeding families
    Cadle-Davidson, L.
    Barba, P.
    Sun, Q.
    Hyma, K.
    Takacs, E.
    Lillis, J.
    Ledbetter, C.
    Ramming, D.
    Reisch, B.
    PHYTOPATHOLOGY, 2014, 104 (11) : 152 - 152
  • [33] Indirect treatment comparisons: Choosing the right tool for the job
    Pratley, Richard E.
    Gorst-Rasmussen, Anders
    DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, 2022, 24 (06): : 1180 - 1181
  • [34] AI for research: the ultimate guide to choosing the right tool
    Amanda Heidt
    Nature, 2025, 640 (8058) : 555 - 557
  • [35] In vitro models of medulloblastoma: Choosing the right tool for the job
    Ivanov, Delyan P.
    Coyle, Beth
    Walker, David A.
    Grabowska, Anna M.
    JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2016, 236 : 10 - 25
  • [37] Choosing the right X-ray tool for the job
    Roth, H
    Lehman, DK
    EE-EVALUATION ENGINEERING, 2006, 45 (04): : 52 - 55
  • [38] Choosing the Right Vacuum Pump for Your Application
    Palmer, Ross
    AMERICAN LABORATORY, 2019, 51 (03) : 17 - 17
  • [39] Eukaryotic translesion synthesis: Choosing the right tool for the job
    Powers, Kyle T.
    Washington, M. Todd
    DNA REPAIR, 2018, 71 : 127 - 134
  • [40] Choosing the Right Tool for the Job: RNAi, TALEN, or CRISPR
    Boettcher, Michael
    McManus, Michael T.
    MOLECULAR CELL, 2015, 58 (04) : 575 - 585