ArticlePlant methods2025
The evaluation of different combinations of enzyme set, aligner and caller in GBS sequencing of soybean.
Article in Plant methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Genome-Wide, High-Density Genotyping Approaches for Plant Germplasm Characterisation (Methods and Applications).International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenotype-by-sequencing (GBS) is a cost-effective method for large-scale genotyping, widely used across various species, particularly those with large genomes. A critical aspect of GBS lies in the selection of restriction enzymes for genome digestion and the optimization of data analysis pipelines. However, few studies have comprehensively examined the combined effects of enzyme choice and pipeline configuration.
resultsIn this study, we created GBS libraries using three commonly used restriction enzyme combinations (HindIII-NlaIII, PstI-MspI, and ApeKI) and assessed multiple SNP-calling pipelines in 15 soybean varieties. We tested four aligners (BWA-MEM, Bowtie2, BBMap, and Strobealign) and seven SNP callers (Bcftools, Stacks, DeepVariant, FreeBayes, VarScan, BBCallVariants, and GATK). Our finding reveal that enzyme choice significantly influences the number of identified SNP, gene localization preferences, and accuracy. Furthermore, the performance of SNP callers varied markedly in terms of SNP count, precision, recall, and false discovery rate (FDR). DeepVariant exhibited the highest accuracy, with 76.0% of its SNPs intersecting with whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-derived SNPs and an FDR of 0.0095, compared to FreeBayes, which had 47.8% intersection and an FDR of 0.6321.
conclusionsOur findings underscore the importance of optimizing both enzyme selection for sequencing libraries and data analysis pipelines to ensure robust and reproducible results. This study provides a general framework for designing large-scale genotyping experiments aimed to specific quality and quantity requirements in various plant species.
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.