P. M. VanRaden,1 D.M. Bickhart,1 and J.R. O'Connell2
1USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, Beltsville, MD 20705-2350
2University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
2019 J. Dairy Sci (?)
© American Dairy Science Association, 2019. All rights reserved. Individuals may download, store, or print single copies solely for personal use.
Do not share personal accounts or passwords for the purposes of disseminating this article.
Whole-genome sequencing studies can identify causative mutations for subsequent use in genomic evaluations. Speed and accuracy of sequence alignment can be improved by accounting for known variant locations during alignment instead of calling the variants after alignment as in previous programs. New programs Findmap and Findvar were compared to alignment using Burrows–Wheeler Alignment (BWA) or SNAP and variant identification using Genome Analysis ToolKit (GATK) or SAMtools. Findmap stores the reference map andany known variant locations while aligning reads and counting reference and alternate alleles for each DNA source. Findmap also outputs potential new single nucleotide variant, insertion, and deletion alleles. Findvar separates likely true variants from read errors and outputs genotype probabilities. Strategies were tested using cattle, human, and a completely random reference map and simulated or actual data. Most tests simulated 10 bulls each with 10× simulated sequence reads containing 39 million variants from the 1000 Bull Genomes Project. With 10 processors, clock times to process 100× data were 105 h for BWA, 25 h for GATK, and 11 h for SAMtools but only about 4 h for SNAP, 3 h for Findmap, and 1 h for Findvar. Alignment programs required about the same total memory; BWA used 46 GB (4.6 GB/processor), whereas >10 processors can share the same memory in SNAP and Findmap, which used 40 and 46 GB, respectively. Findmap correctly mapped 92.9% of reads (compared with 92.6% from SNAP and 90.5% from BWA) and had high accuracy of calling alleles for known variants. For new variants, Findvar found 99.8% of single nucleotide variants, 79% of insertions, and 67% of deletions; GATK found 99.4, 95, and 90%; and SAMtools found 99.8, 12, and 16%, respectively. False positives (as percentages of true variants) were 11% of single nucleotide variants, 0.4% of insertions, and 0.3% of deletions from Findvar; 12, 8.4, and 2.9% from GATK; and 37, 1.3, and 0.4% from SAMtools, respectively. Advantages of Findmap and Findvar are fast processing, precise alignment, more useful data summaries, more compact output, and fewer steps. Calling known variants during alignment allows more efficient and accurate sequence-based genotyping.