
Abstract In this paper we evaluate using genotype-by-sequencing (GBS) data to perform parentage assignment in lieu of traditional array data. The use of GBS data raises two issues: First, for low-coverage GBS data, it may not be possible to call the genotype at many loci, a critical first step for detecting opposing homozygous markers. Second, the amount of sequencing coverage may vary across individuals, making it challenging to directly compare the likelihood scores between putative parents. To address these issues we extend the probabilistic framework of Huisman (2017) and evaluate putative parents by comparing their (potentially noisy) genotypes to a series of proposal distributions. These distributions describe the expected genotype probabilities for the relatives of an individual. We assign putative parents as a parent if they are classified as a parent (as opposed to e.g., an unrelated individual), and if the assignment score passes a threshold. We evaluated this method on simulated data and found that (1) high-coverage GBS data performs similarly to array data and requires only a small number of markers to correctly assign parents and (2) low-coverage GBS data (as low as 0.1x) can also be used, provided that it is obtained across a large number of markers. When analysing the low-coverage GBS data, we also found a high number of false positives if the true parent is not contained within the list of candidate parents, but that this false positive rate can be greatly reduced by hand tuning the assignment threshold. We provide this parentage assignment method as a standalone program called AlphaAssign.
Genotype, Genotyping Techniques, Animals, Computational Biology, Original Articles, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
Genotype, Genotyping Techniques, Animals, Computational Biology, Original Articles, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 27 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
