↓ Skip to main content

Whole-genome characterization in pedigreed non-human primates using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) and imputation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Whole-genome characterization in pedigreed non-human primates using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) and imputation
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2966-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin N. Bimber, Michael J. Raboin, John Letaw, Kimberly A. Nevonen, Jennifer E. Spindel, Susan R. McCouch, Rita Cervera-Juanes, Eliot Spindel, Lucia Carbone, Betsy Ferguson, Amanda Vinson

Abstract

Rhesus macaques are widely used in biomedical research, but the application of genomic information in this species to better understand human disease is still in its infancy. Whole-genome sequence (WGS) data in large pedigreed macaque colonies could provide substantial experimental power for genetic discovery, but the collection of WGS data in large cohorts remains a formidable expense. Here, we describe a cost-effective approach that selects the most informative macaques in a pedigree for 30X WGS, followed by low-cost genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) at 30X on the remaining macaques in order to generate sparse genotype data at high accuracy. Dense variants from the selected macaques with WGS data are then imputed into macaques having only sparse GBS data, resulting in dense genome-wide genotypes throughout the pedigree. We developed GBS for the macaque genome using a digestion with PstI, followed by sequencing of size-selected fragments at 30X coverage. From GBS sequence data collected on all individuals in a 16-member pedigree, we characterized high-confidence genotypes at 22,455 single nucleotide variant (SNV) sites that were suitable for guiding imputation of dense sequence data from WGS. To characterize dense markers for imputation, we performed WGS at 30X coverage on nine of the 16 individuals, yielding 10,193,425 high-confidence SNVs. To validate the use of GBS data for facilitating imputation, we initially focused on chromosome 19 as a test case, using an optimized panel of 833 sparse, evenly-spaced markers from GBS and 5,010 dense markers from WGS. Using the method of "Genotype Imputation Given Inheritance" (GIGI), we evaluated the effects on imputation accuracy of 3 different strategies for selecting individuals for WGS, including 1) using "GIGI-Pick" to select the most informative individuals, 2) using the most recent generation, or 3) using founders only.  We also evaluated the effects on imputation accuracy of using a range of from 1 to 9 WGS individuals for imputation. We found that the GIGI-Pick algorithm for selection of WGS individuals outperformed common heuristic approaches, and that genotype numbers and accuracy improved very little when using >5 WGS individuals for imputation. Informed by our findings, we used 4 macaques with WGS data to impute variants at up to 7,655,491 sites spanning all 20 autosomes in the 12 remaining macaques, based on their GBS genotypes at only 17,158 loci. Using a strict confidence threshold, we imputed an average of 3,680,238 variants per individual at >99 % accuracy, or an average 4,458,883 variants per individual at a more relaxed threshold, yielding >97 % accuracy. We conclude that an optimal tradeoff between genotype accuracy, number of imputed genotypes, and overall cost exists at the ratio of one individual selected for WGS using the GIGI-Pick algorithm, per 3-5 relatives selected for GBS. This approach makes feasible the collection of accurate, dense genome-wide sequence data in large pedigreed macaque cohorts without the need for more expensive WGS data on all individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 27 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 20%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,859,387
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,935
of 10,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,509
of 344,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#110
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,793 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.