ArticlePloS one2024
Variant calling and genotyping accuracy of ddRAD-seq: Comparison with 20X WGS in layers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple genomic approaches reveal geographic structure and local selection signals in invasive Anopheles stephensi from the Horn of Africa and Yemen.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Assessment of genome-wide genetic variability and population divergence of four native Turkish sheep breeds.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026Article
- Candidate genes related to growth and milk production in three Anatolian goats revealed by GWAS.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026Article
- Missing or Mis-Telling the Story? Trade-Offs for Restriction-Site Associated Compared to Whole Genome Sequencing.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Genomic scans for diversity and selection signatures in Indian Red Sindhi cattle.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Article
- Phuphan chicken breeds: classification as varieties or distinct breeds with three derivative groups using microsatellite genotyping.Animal bioscience · 2025Article
- Comparison of unique Dong Tao chickens from Vietnam and Thailand: genetic background and differences for resource management.Genes & genomics · 2025Article
- Fine-tuning GBS data with comparison of reference and mock genome approaches for advancing genomic selection in less studied farmed species.BMC genomics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) remains a costly or unsuitable method for routine genotyping of laying hens. Until now, breeding companies have been using or developing SNP chips. Nevertheless, alternatives methods based on sequencing have been developed. Among these, reduced representation sequencing approaches can offer sequencing quality and cost-effectiveness by reducing the genomic regions covered by sequencing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of double digested Restriction site Associated DNA sequencing (ddRAD-seq) to identify and genotype SNPs in laying hens, by comparison with a presumed reliable WGS approach. Firstly, the sensitivity and precision of variant calling and the genotyping reliability of ddRADseq were determined. Next, the SNP Call Rate (CRSNP) and mean depth of sequencing per SNP (DPSNP) were compared between both methods. Finally, the effect of multiple combinations of thresholds for these parameters on genotyping reliability and amount of remaining SNPs in ddRAD-seq was studied. In raw form, the ddRAD-seq identified 349,497 SNPs evenly distributed on the genome with a CRSNP of 0.55, a DPSNP of 11X and a mean genotyping reliability rate per SNP of 80%. Considering genomic regions covered by expected enzymatic fragments (EFs), the sensitivity of the ddRAD-seq was estimated at 32.4% and its precision at 96.4%. The low CRSNP and DPSNP values were explained by the detection of SNPs outside the EFs theoretically generated by the ddRAD-seq protocol. Indeed, SNPs outside the EFs had significantly lower CRSNP (0.25) and DPSNP (1X) values than SNPs within the EFs (0.7 and 17X, resp.). The study demonstrated the relationship between CRSNP, DPSNP, genotyping reliability and the number of SNPs retained, to provide a decision-support tool for defining filtration thresholds. Severe quality control over ddRAD-seq data allowed to retain a minimum of 40% of the SNPs with a CcR of 98%. Then, ddRAD-seq was defined as a suitable method for variant calling and genotyping in layers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.