Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33827434›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2021

Integration of Infinium and Axiom SNP array data in the outcrossing species Malus × domestica and causes for seemingly incompatible calls.

Nicholas P Howard, Michela Troggio, Charles-Eric Durel, Hélène Muranty, Caroline Denancé, Luca Bianco, John Tillman, Eric van de Weg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. QTL mapping and genomic prediction of resistance to apple blotch (Molecular breeding : new strategies in plant improvement · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. DNA profiling with the 20K apple SNP array revealsFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  14. Multi-omics analyses revealHorticulture research · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

8 authors.

Nicholas P HowardInstitut für Biologie und Umweltwissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Univ., Oldenburg, Germany.
Michela TroggioFondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all'Adige, TN, Italy.
Charles-Eric DurelUniversité d'Angers, Institut Agro, INRAE, IRHS, SFR 4207 QuaSaV, Beaucouzé, France.
Hélène MurantyUniversité d'Angers, Institut Agro, INRAE, IRHS, SFR 4207 QuaSaV, Beaucouzé, France.
Caroline DenancéUniversité d'Angers, Institut Agro, INRAE, IRHS, SFR 4207 QuaSaV, Beaucouzé, France.
Luca BiancoFondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all'Adige, TN, Italy.
John TillmanDepartment of Horticultural Science, Univ. of Minnesota, St Paul, USA.
Eric van de WegDepartment of Plant Breeding, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. eric.vandeweg@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9443-5974

Funding

Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur VWZN3250Seventh Framework Programme 265582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array technology has been increasingly used to generate large quantities of SNP data for use in genetic studies. As new arrays are developed to take advantage of new technology and of improved probe design using new genome sequence and panel data, a need to integrate data from different arrays and array platforms has arisen. This study was undertaken in view of our need for an integrated high-quality dataset of Illumina Infinium® 20 K and Affymetrix Axiom® 480 K SNP array data in apple (Malus × domestica). In this study, we qualify and quantify the compatibility of SNP calling, defined as SNP calls that are both accurate and concordant, across both arrays by two approaches. First, the concordance of SNP calls was evaluated using a set of 417 duplicate individuals genotyped on both arrays starting from a set of 10,295 robust SNPs on the Infinium array. Next, the accuracy of the SNP calls was evaluated on additional germplasm (n = 3141) from both arrays using Mendelian inconsistent and consistent errors across thousands of pedigree links. While performing this work, we took the opportunity to evaluate reasons for probe failure and observed discordant SNP calls.

resultsConcordance among the duplicate individuals was on average of 97.1% across 10,295 SNPs. Of these SNPs, 35% had discordant call(s) that were further curated, leading to a final set of 8412 (81.7%) SNPs that were deemed compatible. Compatibility was highly influenced by the presence of alternate probe binding locations and secondary polymorphisms. The impact of the latter was highly influenced by their number and proximity to the 3' end of the probe.

conclusionsThe Infinium and Axiom SNP array data were mostly compatible. However, data integration required intense data filtering and curation. This work resulted in a workflow and information that may be of use in other data integration efforts. Such an in-depth analysis of array concordance and accuracy as ours has not been previously described in the literature and will be useful in future work on SNP array data integration and interpretation, and in probe/platform development.

Indexed as

MalusGenomeGenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideGenotypingMalusSingle nucleotide polymorphismSNP Array

Identifiers

PMID33827434
PMCPMC8028180

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.