Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Edward BucklerUSDA-ARS
Cornell Universityhttp://www.maizegenetics.net
Why can GBS be complicated? Tools
for filtering, error correction and
imputation.
Many Organisms Are Diverse
Humans are at the lower end of diversity, which results in most genomic and bioinformatics
being optimized to this situation
What is diverse: Grapes, Flies, Arabidopsis, and most dominant species on the planet
Maize has more molecular diversity than humans and apes combined
Silent Diversity (Zhao PNAS 2000; Tenallion et al, PNAS 2001)
1.34%0.09%
1.42%
Maize genetic variation has been evolving for 5 million years
Modern Variation Begins Evolving
Sister Genus Diverges
Zea species begin diverging
Maize domesticated
5mya
4mya
3mya
2mya
1mya
War
m
Plio
cene
Col
d Pl
eist
ocen
eDivergence from Chimps
Ardipithecus
Homo erectus
Modern HumansModern Variation Begins
Australopithecus
What are our expectations with GBS?
High Diversity Ensures High Return on Sequencing
• Proportion of informative markers– Highly repetitive – 15% not easily
informative– Half the genome is not shared between two
maize line• Potentially all of these are informative with a
large enough database– Low copy shared proportion (1% diversity)
• Bi-parental information = (1-0.01)^64bp = 48% informative
• Association information = (1-0.05)^64bp= 97% informative
Expectation of marker distribution
Biallelic, 17%
Too Repetitiv
e, 15%
Non-polymor
phic; 18%
Presense/Absense
, 50%
Multiallelic, 34%
Too Repetitiv
e, 15%
Non-polymorphic; 1%
Presense/Absense
, 50%
Biparental population Across the species
Sequencing Error
Illumina Basic Error Rate is ~1%
• Error rates are associated with distance from start of sequence– Bad – GBS puts these all at the same
position– Good – Reverse reads can correct– Good – Error are consistent and modelable
Reads with errors
• Perfect sequences:0.9964=52.5% of the 64bp sequences are
perfect47.5 are NOT perfect
The errors are autocorrelated so the proportion of perfect sequence is a little higher, and those with 2 or more is also higher.
Do we see these errors?• Assume 10,000 lines genotyped at
0.5X coverage
Base Type Read # (no SNP)
Read # (w/ SNP)
A Major 4950 4900
C Minor 17 67 (50 real)
G Error 17 17
T Error 17 17
Do Errors Matter?• Yes –Imputation, Haplotype
reconstruction• Maybe – GWAS for low frequency
SNPs• No – GS, genetic distance, mapping
on biparental populations
Expectations of Real SNPs
• Vast majority are biallelic• Homozygosity is predicted by
inbreeding coefficient• Allele frequency is constrained in
structured populations• In linkage disequilibrium with
neighboring SNPs
Studying Errors in Biparental populationsLimited range of alleles,
expected allele frequencies, high LD
Maize RIL population expectations
• Allele frequency 0% or 50%• Nearby sites should be in very high
LD (r2>50%)• Most sites can be tested if multiple
populations are available
Bi-parental populations allow identification of error, and non-Mendelian segregation
Error
Non-segregating
Segregating
Bi-parental populations allow identification of error, and non-Mendelian segregation
Error
Median error rate is 0.004, but there is a long tail of some high error sites
Median
HapMap
Process
File (data structure)
Clean Up and Imputation
HapMap
GBSHapMapFiltersPluginSite Coverage, Taxa Coverage, Inbreeding
Coefficient, LD
ImputationImputation &
Phasing
KinshipDistance
PhylogenyLDGS
GWAS
MergeDuplicateSNPsPluginMerge reads from opposite sides
BiParentalErrorCorrectionPluginError rate estimation, LD filters
MergeIdenticalTaxaPluginError rate estimation, LD filters
MergeDuplicateSNPsPlugin
• When restriction sites are less than 128bp apart, we may read SNP from both directions (strands)
• ~13% of all sites• Fusing increases coverage• Fixes errors• -misMat = set maximum mismatch rate• -callHets = mismatch set to hets or not
Use the biology of your system to filter SNP
• Hardy-Weinberg Disequilibrium• For inbreeding crops use the expected
inbreeding coefficient to filter SNPs• How to deal with the low coverage—
– Although many individuals only have 1X coverage (27% of the samples will have 2X or more). Use these individuals to evaluate the quality of segregation.
Product of Filtering
• After filters, in maize we find 0.0018 error rate– AAaa = < 0.0018– AAAa = 0.8 at low coverage
• SNPs in wrong location
Imputation
Missing DataTwo major sources:• Sampling
• Low coverage often used in big genomes with inbred lines
• Differential coverage caused by fragment size biases
• Biological• Region on genome not shared between lines• Cut site polymorphisms
We want to impute the missing sampling but not the biological
Standard Imputation
Lots of algorithms: FastPhase, NPUTE, BEAGLE, etc.
These are appropriate for high coverage loci, inbreds, and regions where biological missing is a rare condition
Some can be slow for sample sizes that we have.
BEAGLE
• http://faculty.washington.edu/browning/beagle/beagle.html
• Currently the best published approach. Works well with many population designs.
• Main weakness is scaling with thousands of samples.
• Not efficient for mapping populations
Hidden Markov Model TASSEL GBS Imputation
• Developed by Peter Bradbury• Aimed a GBS and biparental populations• Hidden Markov Model • First reconstruct parental gametes and then
offspring• Very accurate at determining boundaries• Works well on Maize NAM inbred lines, and
probably others.• AA BB error rate– 0.00005• AB > AA – 0.0278
The Viterbi Algorithm
N = 1 2 3 4
distance between two points = log[ P(obsn|gn) P(gn|gn‐1) ]
homozygous parent 1
heterozygous
homozygous parent 2
→→→
Defining the transition matrix
• The probability of a homozygote → homozygote transition is a function of the recombination frequency and number of generations of selfing.
• Calcula ng the probability of a heterozygote → homozygote transition is more complex in RILs. Even the ratio of transitions varies with generations of selfing.
• An alternative is just to estimate the transition frequencies directly from the data.
Calculating P(obs|genotype)
• P(obs | genotype) is a direct function of the genotype calling error rates.
• P(obs = parent 1| genotype = parent2) is just the rate at which homozygotes are called incorrectly as the other homozygote.
• These can be estimated initially from GBS data, then refined using an E‐M algorithm
An E‐M algorithm
• The parameters defining the model are– initial state probabilities– transition matrix– P(obs | genotype) matrix
• Algorithm– Maximize P(G|S)– Using this G, estimate the parameters– Iterate to convergence (always
Hidden Markov Model TASSEL GBS Imputation
• Available as TASSEL 4.0 plugin• CallParentAllelesPlugin• ViterbiAlgorithmPlugin
• Most problems appears in poorly controlled populations
• Substantial number of errors caused by sample/pollination mix up.
FindMergeHaplotypesPlugin +MinorWindowViterbiImputationPlugin• Imputation approach focused on speed and
large sets of taxa with some closely related individuals.
• Nearest neighbor approach combined with Viterbi
• Strengths: Very accurate 2X of each segments)
Unstable Genomes
Using the Presence/Absence Variants
• In species like maize, this is the majority of the data
• Less subject to sequencing error• Need imputation methods to
differentiate between missing from sampling and biologically missing
Only 50% of the maize genome is shared between two varieties
Fu & Dooner 2002, Morgante et al. 2005, Brunner et al 2005Numerous PAVs and CNVs - Springer, Lai, Schnable in 2010
50%
Plant 1
Plant 2 Plant 3
99%
Person 1
Person 2 Person 3
Maize Humans
GWAS and Joint linkage mapping
Read depth (B73 vs Non-B73)
Identify structural variations
Tags
GWAS
JointLinkage
If Map AlignIf
AlignY
PAVsN
Chromosome
B73
Non‐B73
Bin 1 Bin 2 Bin 3
PAV (Deletion) CNV (Duplication)
Insertion
Developed by Fei Lu
Dependent variable, distance (abs(genetic position – physical position))
Attributes: P-value, likelihood ratio, tag count, etc.
Machine learning models: decision tree, SVM, M5Rules, etc.
Model training for mapping accuracy
6.4 M
0.5 M
8.6 M
GJ
G
J
Y
Y
Y
4.5 M mapped tags26M tags
GWAS
Joint linkage
Model training and prediction using M5Rules
High-resolution mapped tags
95%
50%
4.5 million mapped tags in all maize lines
100 bp 10 Kb 1 Mb 10 Kb1 Gb 10 Gb
Median resolution
Framework of maize pan genome
Paired-End Sequencing
• Most of the tags are less than 500bp in size.
• Full contigs can be developed by sequencing them on a MiSeq with paired-end 250bp reads
• Strategies – physically bridge from the mapped end, genetically anchor one end.
Phylogenetic (Cross Species) Analysis
• When divergence
Future• Need better integration of Whole Genome
Sequence data with pipeline– Add information on premature cut sites or
mutated cut sites• Use paired-end read information• Full incorporation of presence/absence
variants• Quantitative genotype tools for
polyploids/GS