Cargando…

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

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‐...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scheben, Armin, Batley, Jacqueline, Edwards, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5258866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27696619
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12645
_version_ 1782499100512485376
author Scheben, Armin
Batley, Jacqueline
Edwards, David
author_facet Scheben, Armin
Batley, Jacqueline
Edwards, David
author_sort Scheben, Armin
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5258866
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52588662017-02-03 Genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application Scheben, Armin Batley, Jacqueline Edwards, David Plant Biotechnol J Review 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-01-24 2017-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5258866/ /pubmed/27696619 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12645 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Plant Biotechnology Journal published by Society for Experimental Biology and The Association of Applied Biologists and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Scheben, Armin
Batley, Jacqueline
Edwards, David
Genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application
title Genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application
title_full Genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application
title_fullStr Genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application
title_full_unstemmed Genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application
title_short Genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application
title_sort genotyping‐by‐sequencing approaches to characterize crop genomes: choosing the right tool for the right application
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5258866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27696619
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12645
work_keys_str_mv AT schebenarmin genotypingbysequencingapproachestocharacterizecropgenomeschoosingtherighttoolfortherightapplication
AT batleyjacqueline genotypingbysequencingapproachestocharacterizecropgenomeschoosingtherighttoolfortherightapplication
AT edwardsdavid genotypingbysequencingapproachestocharacterizecropgenomeschoosingtherighttoolfortherightapplication