Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37903749›Full record

ArticleThe plant genome2023

Impact of genotype-calling methodologies on genome-wide association and genomic prediction in polyploids.

Joyce N Njuguna, Lindsay V Clark, Alexander E Lipka, Kossonou G Anzoua, Larisa Bagmet, Pavel Chebukin, Maria S Dwiyanti, Elena Dzyubenko, Nicolay Dzyubenko, Bimal Kumar Ghimire and 16 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The plant genome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

26 authors at 13 institutions in 6 countries.

Joyce N NjugunaDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2008-3387
Lindsay V ClarkResearch Scientific Computing, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Alexander E LipkaDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1571-8528
Kossonou G AnzouaField Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Larisa BagmetVavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Pavel ChebukinFSBSI "FSC of Agricultural Biotechnology of the Far East named after A.K. Chaiki", Ussuriysk, Russian Federation.
Maria S DwiyantiField Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Elena DzyubenkoVavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Nicolay DzyubenkoVavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Bimal Kumar GhimireDepartment of Crop Science, College of Sanghuh Life Science, Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea.
Xiaoli JinAgronomy Department, Key Laboratory of Crop Germplasm Research of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4829-176X
Douglas A JohnsonUSDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Lab, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.
Jens Bonderup KjeldsenDepartment of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Hironori NaganoField Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Ivone de Bem OliveiraHorticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Junhua PengSpring Valley Agriscience Co. Ltd., Jinan, China.
Karen Koefoed PetersenSchroll Medical ApS, Årslev, Denmark.
Andrey SabitovVavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Eun Soo SeongDivision of Bioresource Sciences, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea.
Toshihiko YamadaField Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Ji Hye YooBioherb Research Institute, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea.
Chang Yeon YuBioherb Research Institute, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea.
Hua ZhaoKey Laboratory of Horticultural Plant Biology of Ministry of Education, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Patricio MunozHorticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Stephen P LongDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
Erik J SacksDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
Hokkaido University · JPN.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry · RUUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USKangwon National University · KRUniversity of Florida · USAarhus University · DKCorteva (United States) · USHuazhong Agricultural University · CNKonkuk University · KRSeattle Children's Hospital · USUssuriysk Astrophysical Observatory · RUUtah State University · USZheJiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CN

Funding

National Science Foundation 1661490U.S. Department of Energy DE-SC0012379U.S. Department of Energy DE-SC0018420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discovery and analysis of genetic variants underlying agriculturally important traits are key to molecular breeding of crops. Reduced representation approaches have provided cost-efficient genotyping using next-generation sequencing. However, accurate genotype calling from next-generation sequencing data is challenging, particularly in polyploid species due to their genome complexity. Recently developed Bayesian statistical methods implemented in available software packages, polyRAD, EBG, and updog, incorporate error rates and population parameters to accurately estimate allelic dosage across any ploidy. We used empirical and simulated data to evaluate the three Bayesian algorithms and demonstrated their impact on the power of genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis and the accuracy of genomic prediction. We further incorporated uncertainty in allelic dosage estimation by testing continuous genotype calls and comparing their performance to discrete genotypes in GWAS and genomic prediction. We tested the genotype-calling methods using data from two autotetraploid species, Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Vaccinium corymbosum, and performed GWAS and genomic prediction. In the empirical study, the tested Bayesian genotype-calling algorithms differed in their downstream effects on GWAS and genomic prediction, with some showing advantages over others. Through subsequent simulation studies, we observed that at low read depth, polyRAD was advantageous in its effect on GWAS power and limit of false positives. Additionally, we found that continuous genotypes increased the accuracy of genomic prediction, by reducing genotyping error, particularly at low sequencing depth. Our results indicate that by using the Bayesian algorithm implemented in polyRAD and continuous genotypes, we can accurately and cost-efficiently implement GWAS and genomic prediction in polyploid crops.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsBayes TheoremGenotypePolyploidy

Identifiers

PMID37903749
PMCPMC12807030
OpenAlexW4388035385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.