Cargando…

Breed identification using breed-informative SNPs and machine learning based on whole genome sequence data and SNP chip data

BACKGROUND: Breed identification is useful in a variety of biological contexts. Breed identification usually involves two stages, i.e., detection of breed-informative SNPs and breed assignment. For both stages, there are several methods proposed. However, what is the optimal combination of these met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, Changheng, Wang, Dan, Teng, Jun, Yang, Cheng, Zhang, Xinyi, Wei, Xianming, Zhang, Qin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10234014/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37259083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40104-023-00880-x
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Breed identification is useful in a variety of biological contexts. Breed identification usually involves two stages, i.e., detection of breed-informative SNPs and breed assignment. For both stages, there are several methods proposed. However, what is the optimal combination of these methods remain unclear. In this study, using the whole genome sequence data available for 13 cattle breeds from Run 8 of the 1,000 Bull Genomes Project, we compared the combinations of three methods (Delta, F(ST), and I(n)) for breed-informative SNP detection and five machine learning methods (KNN, SVM, RF, NB, and ANN) for breed assignment with respect to different reference population sizes and difference numbers of most breed-informative SNPs. In addition, we evaluated the accuracy of breed identification using SNP chip data of different densities. RESULTS: We found that all combinations performed quite well with identification accuracies over 95% in all scenarios. However, there was no combination which performed the best and robust across all scenarios. We proposed to integrate the three breed-informative detection methods, named DFI, and integrate the three machine learning methods, KNN, SVM, and RF, named KSR. We found that the combination of these two integrated methods outperformed the other combinations with accuracies over 99% in most cases and was very robust in all scenarios. The accuracies from using SNP chip data were only slightly lower than that from using sequence data in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed that the combination of DFI and KSR was the optimal strategy. Using sequence data resulted in higher accuracies than using chip data in most cases. However, the differences were generally small. In view of the cost of genotyping, using chip data is also a good option for breed identification. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40104-023-00880-x.