4.6 Review

Recommendations for Choosing the Genotyping Method and Best Practices for Quality Control in Crop Genome-Wide Association Studies

Journal

FRONTIERS IN GENETICS
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00447

Keywords

crops; GWAS; genotyping; quality control; bioinformatics tools

Funding

  1. project LEgume GEnetic REsources as a tool for the development of innovative and sustainable food TEchnological system supported under the Thought for Food Initiative by Agropolis Fondation (through the Investissements d'avenir programme [ANR-10-LABX-0001-01]
  2. Fondazione Cariplo
  3. Daniel & Nina Carasso Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High-throughput genotyping boosts genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in crop species, leading to the identification of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with economically important traits. Choosing a cost-effective genotyping method for crop GWAS requires careful examination of several aspects, namely, the purpose and the scale of the study, crop-specific genomic features, and technical and economic matters associated with each genotyping option. Once genotypic data have been obtained, quality control (QC) procedures must be applied to avoid bias and false signals in genotype-phenotype association tests. QC for human GWAS has been extensively reviewed; however, QC for crop GWAS may require different actions, depending on the GWAS population type. Here, we review most popular genotyping methods based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) and array hybridization, and report observations that should guide the investigator in the choice of the genotyping method for crop GWAS. We provide recommendations to perform QC in crop species, and deliver an overview of bioinformatics tools that can be used to accomplish all needed tasks. Overall, this work aims to provide guidelines to harmonize those procedures leading to SNP datasets ready for crop GWAS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available