Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29281959›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

A comparison of genotyping-by-sequencing analysis methods on low-coverage crop datasets shows advantages of a new workflow, GB-eaSy.

Daniel P Wickland, Gopal Battu, Karen A Hudson, Brian W Diers, Matthew E Hudson

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. The origins and spread of the opium poppy (Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Unravelling the genetic architecture of soybean tofu quality traits.Molecular breeding : new strategies in plant improvement · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel P WicklandDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Gopal BattuDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Karen A HudsonUSDA-ARS Crop Production and Pest Control Research Unit, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA.
Brian W DiersDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Matthew E HudsonDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA. mhudson@illinois.edu.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology · USState Street (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), a method to identify genetic variants and quickly genotype samples, reduces genome complexity by using restriction enzymes to divide the genome into fragments whose ends are sequenced on short-read sequencing platforms. While cost-effective, this method produces extensive missing data and requires complex bioinformatics analysis. GBS is most commonly used on crop plant genomes, and because crop plants have highly variable ploidy and repeat content, the performance of GBS analysis software can vary by target organism. Here we focus our analysis on soybean, a polyploid crop with a highly duplicated genome, relatively little public GBS data and few dedicated tools.

resultsWe compared the performance of five GBS pipelines using low-coverage Illumina sequence data from three soybean populations. To address issues identified with existing methods, we developed GB-eaSy, a GBS bioinformatics workflow that incorporates widely used genomics tools, parallelization and automation to increase the accuracy and accessibility of GBS data analysis. Compared to other GBS pipelines, GB-eaSy rapidly and accurately identified the greatest number of SNPs, with SNP calls closely concordant with whole-genome sequencing of selected lines. Across all five GBS analysis platforms, SNP calls showed unexpectedly low convergence but generally high accuracy, indicating that the workflows arrived at largely complementary sets of valid SNP calls on the low-coverage data analyzed.

conclusionsWe show that GB-eaSy is approximately as good as, or better than, other leading software solutions in the accuracy, yield and missing data fraction of variant calling, as tested on low-coverage genomic data from soybean. It also performs well relative to other solutions in terms of the run time and disk space required. In addition, GB-eaSy is built from existing open-source, modular software packages that are regularly updated and commonly used, making it straightforward to install and maintain. While GB-eaSy outperformed other individual methods on the datasets analyzed, our findings suggest that a comprehensive approach integrating the results from multiple GBS bioinformatics pipelines may be the optimal strategy to obtain the largest, most highly accurate SNP yield possible from low-coverage polyploid sequence data.

Indexed as

SoftwareWorkflowCrops, AgriculturalGenome, PlantGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesGlycine maxHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePolyploidyWhole Genome SequencingBioinformatics pipelinesCropsGBSSoybeanVariant callingWGS

Identifiers

PMID29281959
PMCPMC5745977
OpenAlexW2777994090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.