Mining of haplotype-based expressed sequence tag single nucleotide polymorphisms in citrus

Publication Overview
TitleMining of haplotype-based expressed sequence tag single nucleotide polymorphisms in citrus
AuthorsChen C and Gmitter FG.
TypeJournal Article
Journal NameBMC Genomics
Volume14
Year2013
Page(s)746
CitationChen C and Gmitter FG. Mining of haplotype-based expressed sequence tag single nucleotide polymorphisms in citrus. BMC Genomics. 2013. 14: 746.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), the most abundant variations in a genome, have been widely used in various studies. Detection and characterization of citrus haplotype-based expressed sequence tag (EST) SNPs will greatly facilitate further utilization of these gene-based resources. RESULTS: In this paper, haplotype-based SNPs were mined out of publicly available citrus expressed sequence tags (ESTs) from different citrus cultivars (genotypes) individually and collectively for comparison. There were a total of 567,297 ESTs belonging to 27 cultivars in varying numbers and consequentially yielding different numbers of haplotype-based quality SNPs. Sweet orange (SO) had the most (213,830) ESTs, generating 11,182 quality SNPs in 3,327 out of 4,228 usable contigs. Summed from all the individually mining results, a total of 25,417 quality SNPs were discovered - 15,010 (59.1%) were transitions (AG and CT), 9,114 (35.9%) were transversions (AC, GT, CG, and AT), and 1,293 (5.0%) were insertion/deletions (indels). A vast majority of SNP-containing contigs consisted of only 2 haplotypes, as expected, but the percentages of 2 haplotype contigs varied widely in these citrus cultivars. BLAST of the 25,417 25-mer SNP oligos to the Clementine reference genome scaffolds revealed 2,947 SNPs had "no hits found", 19,943 had 1 unique hit / alignment, 1,571 had one hit and 2+ alignments per hit, and 956 had 2+ hits and 1+ alignment per hit. Of the total 24,293 scaffold hits, 23,955 (98.6%) were on the main scaffolds 1 to 9, and only 338 were on 87 minor scaffolds. Most alignments had 100% (25/25) or 96% (24/25) nucleotide identities, accounting for 93% of all the alignments. Considering almost all the nucleotide discrepancies in the 24/25 alignments were at the SNP sites, it served well as in silico validation of these SNPs, in addition to and consistent with the rate (81%) validated by sequencing and SNaPshot assay. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality EST-SNPs from different citrus genotypes were detected, and compared to estimate the heterozygosity of each genome. All the SNP oligo sequences were aligned with the Clementine citrus genome to determine their distribution and uniqueness and for in silico validation, in addition to SNaPshot and sequencing validation of selected SNPs.
Features
This publication contains information about 25,417 features:
Feature NameUniquenameType
trifloliata_62695_contig5713_p1326_TGtrifloliata_62695_contig5713_p1326_TGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5715_p501_-Ctrifloliata_62695_contig5715_p501_-Cgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5722_p1280_AGtrifloliata_62695_contig5722_p1280_AGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5722_p953_AGtrifloliata_62695_contig5722_p953_AGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5733_p1161_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig5733_p1161_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5733_p705_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig5733_p705_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5753_p256_ATtrifloliata_62695_contig5753_p256_ATgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5753_p398_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig5753_p398_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5753_p564_ATtrifloliata_62695_contig5753_p564_ATgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5753_p628_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig5753_p628_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5753_p680_AGtrifloliata_62695_contig5753_p680_AGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5754_p50_ATtrifloliata_62695_contig5754_p50_ATgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig576_p741_-Ctrifloliata_62695_contig576_p741_-Cgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5760_p131_CTtrifloliata_62695_contig5760_p131_CTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5763_p234_A-trifloliata_62695_contig5763_p234_A-genetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig577_p305_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig577_p305_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5790_p141_-Ctrifloliata_62695_contig5790_p141_-Cgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5790_p239_GCtrifloliata_62695_contig5790_p239_GCgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5790_p610_CGtrifloliata_62695_contig5790_p610_CGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1141_AGtrifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1141_AGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1181_ATtrifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1181_ATgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1530_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1530_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1553_GCtrifloliata_62695_contig5794_p1553_GCgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5804_p759_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig5804_p759_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig5808_p281_CTtrifloliata_62695_contig5808_p281_CTgenetic_marker

Pages

Stocks
This publication contains information about 23 stocks:
Stock NameUniquenameType
Alemow pepadaAlemow pepadaaccession
Amakusa tangorAmakusa tangoraccession
Carrizo CitrangeCarrizo Citrangeaccession
ClementineClementineaccession
CleopatraCleopatraaccession
Etrog 861-S1Etrog 861-S1accession
Fortune tangorFortune tangoraccession
Hassaku mandarinHassaku mandarinaccession
Hayata mandarinHayata mandarinaccession
Kankitsu Chukanbohon Nou 6 Gou tangorKankitsu Chukanbohon Nou 6 Gou tangoraccession
MexicanMexicanaccession
Orah tangorOrah tangoraccession
Palestine sweet limePalestine sweet limeaccession
PonkanPonkanaccession
Rangur limeRangur limeaccession
Rixiangxia mandarinRixiangxia mandarinaccession
Rough LemonRough Lemonaccession
Satsuma mandarinSatsuma mandarinaccession
summer orangesummer orangeaccession
Sweet OrangeSweet Orangeaccession
Swingle citrumeloSwingle citrumeloaccession
Tahiti limeTahiti limeaccession
Trifoliate orangeTrifoliate orangeaccession
Properties
Additional details for this publication include:
Property NameValue
URLhttp://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-14-746