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_contig664_p501_TAtrifloliata_62695_contig664_p501_TAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6649_p395_GTtrifloliata_62695_contig6649_p395_GTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6649_p780_TCtrifloliata_62695_contig6649_p780_TCgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6656_p1121_TAtrifloliata_62695_contig6656_p1121_TAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6658_p766_TAtrifloliata_62695_contig6658_p766_TAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1060_CTtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1060_CTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1080_TGtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1080_TGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p114_CTtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p114_CTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1181_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1181_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1201_ACtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p1201_ACgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p402_CTtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p402_CTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p450_TCtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p450_TCgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p895_ACtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p895_ACgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6669_p979_TCtrifloliata_62695_contig6669_p979_TCgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6674_p230_TGtrifloliata_62695_contig6674_p230_TGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6679_p578_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig6679_p578_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6710_p358_TCtrifloliata_62695_contig6710_p358_TCgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6710_p474_AGtrifloliata_62695_contig6710_p474_AGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6710_p545_GAtrifloliata_62695_contig6710_p545_GAgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6710_p646_CTtrifloliata_62695_contig6710_p646_CTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6710_p875_TGtrifloliata_62695_contig6710_p875_TGgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6721_p551_ATtrifloliata_62695_contig6721_p551_ATgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6729_p106_CTtrifloliata_62695_contig6729_p106_CTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6738_p165_GTtrifloliata_62695_contig6738_p165_GTgenetic_marker
trifloliata_62695_contig6745_p188_CGtrifloliata_62695_contig6745_p188_CGgenetic_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