Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39058708›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Variant calling and genotyping accuracy of ddRAD-seq: Comparison with 20X WGS in layers.

Mathilde Doublet, Fabien Degalez, Sandrine Lagarrigue, Laetitia Lagoutte, Elise Gueret, Sophie Allais, Frédéric Lecerf

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Genomic scans for diversity and selection signatures in Indian Red Sindhi cattle.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Article
  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

7 authors.

Mathilde DoubletPEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, Saint Gilles, France.ORCID 0009-0000-5913-7851
Fabien DegalezPEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, Saint Gilles, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8252-6425
Sandrine LagarriguePEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, Saint Gilles, France.
Laetitia LagouttePEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, Saint Gilles, France.
Elise GueretMGX-Montpellier GenomiX, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0714-3197
Sophie AllaisPEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, Saint Gilles, France.
Frédéric LecerfPEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, Saint Gilles, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6471-1771

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChickensGenotyping TechniquesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideWhole Genome SequencingAnimalsFemaleGenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID39058708
PMCPMC11280156

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.