Finding the right coverage: the impact of coverage and sequence quality on single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping error rates |
| |
| Authors: | Emily D Fountain Jonathan N Pauli Brendan N Reid Per J Palsbøll M Zachariah Peery |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin‐Madison, Madison, WI, USA;2. Marine Evolution and Conservation, Groningen Institute of Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, AG, The Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | Restriction‐enzyme‐based sequencing methods enable the genotyping of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) loci in nonmodel organisms. However, in contrast to traditional genetic markers, genotyping error rates in SNPs derived from restriction‐enzyme‐based methods remain largely unknown. Here, we estimated genotyping error rates in SNPs genotyped with double digest RAD sequencing from Mendelian incompatibilities in known mother–offspring dyads of Hoffman's two‐toed sloth (Choloepus hoffmanni) across a range of coverage and sequence quality criteria, for both reference‐aligned and de novo‐assembled data sets. Genotyping error rates were more sensitive to coverage than sequence quality and low coverage yielded high error rates, particularly in de novo‐assembled data sets. For example, coverage ≥5 yielded median genotyping error rates of ≥0.03 and ≥0.11 in reference‐aligned and de novo‐assembled data sets, respectively. Genotyping error rates declined to ≤0.01 in reference‐aligned data sets with a coverage ≥30, but remained ≥0.04 in the de novo‐assembled data sets. We observed approximately 10‐ and 13‐fold declines in the number of loci sampled in the reference‐aligned and de novo‐assembled data sets when coverage was increased from ≥5 to ≥30 at quality score ≥30, respectively. Finally, we assessed the effects of genotyping coverage on a common population genetic application, parentage assignments, and showed that the proportion of incorrectly assigned maternities was relatively high at low coverage. Overall, our results suggest that the trade‐off between sample size and genotyping error rates be considered prior to building sequencing libraries, reporting genotyping error rates become standard practice, and that effects of genotyping errors on inference be evaluated in restriction‐enzyme‐based SNP studies. |
| |
| Keywords: | ddRAD genotyping error Mendelian incompatibility next‐generation sequencing single nucleotide polymorphism |
|
|
