Genomes of the Mouse Collaborative Cross

Abstract

The Collaborative Cross (CC) is a multiparent panel of recombinant inbred (RI) mouse strains derived from eight founder laboratory strains. RI panels are popular because of their long-term genetic stability, which enhances reproducibility and integration of data collected across time and conditions. Characterization of their genomes can be a community effort, reducing the burden on individual users. Here we present the genomes of the CC strains using two complementary approaches as a resource to improve power and interpretation of genetic experiments. Our study also provides a cautionary tale regarding the limitations imposed by such basic biological processes as mutation and selection. A distinct advantage of inbred panels is that genotyping only needs to be performed on the panel, not on each individual mouse. The initial CC genome data were haplotype reconstructions based on dense genotyping of the most recent common ancestors (MRCAs) of each strain followed by imputation from the genome sequence of the corresponding founder inbred strain. The MRCA resource captured segregating regions in strains that were not fully inbred, but it had limited resolution in the transition regions between founder haplotypes, and there was uncertainty about founder assignment in regions of limited diversity. Here we report the whole genome sequence of 69 CC strains generated by paired-end short reads at 30× coverage of a single male per strain. Sequencing leads to a substantial improvement in the fine structure and completeness of the genomes of the CC. Both MRCAs and sequenced samples show a significant reduction in the genome-wide haplotype frequencies from two wild-derived strains, CAST/EiJ and PWK/PhJ. In addition, analysis of the evolution of the patterns of heterozygosity indicates that selection against three wild-derived founder strains played a significant role in shaping the genomes of the CC. The sequencing resource provides the first description of tens of thousands of new genetic variants introduced by mutation and drift in the CC genomes. We estimate that new SNP mutations are accumulating in each CC strain at a rate of 2.4 ± 0.4 per gigabase per generation. The fixation of new mutations by genetic drift has introduced thousands of new variants into the CC strains. The majority of these mutations are novel compared to currently sequenced laboratory stocks and wild mice, and some are predicted to alter gene function. Approximately one-third of the CC inbred strains have acquired large deletions (>10 kb) many of which overlap known coding genes and functional elements. The sequence of these mice is a critical resource to CC users, increases threefold the number of mouse inbred strain genomes available publicly, and provides insight into the effect of mutation and drift on common resources.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 82

1. 1.

   Ananda G. Takemon Y. Hinerfeld D. Korstanje R., 2014 Whole-genome sequence of the C57L/J mouse inbred strain. G3 4: 1689–1692.

   Not in our library10.1534/g3.114.012997

2. 2.

   Aylor D. L. Valdar W. Foulds-Mathes W. Buus R. J. Verdugo R. A., 2011 Genetic analysis of complex traits in the emerging collaborative cross. Genome Res. 21: 1213–1222.

   Not in our library10.1101/gr.111310.110

3. 3.
   Hybrid Sterility Locus on Chromosome X Controls Meiotic Recombination Rate in Mouse. · 2016

   Not checked
4. 4.

   Bouchet S. Olatoye M. O. Marla S. R. Perumal R. Tesso T., 2017 Increased power to dissect adaptive traits in global sorghum diversity using a nested association mapping population. Genetics 206: 573–585.

   Not in our library10.1534/genetics.116.198499

5. 5.

   Bouquet M. Selva J. Auroux M., 1993 Cryopreservation of mouse oocytes: Mutagenic effects in the embryo? Biol. Reprod. 49: 764–769.

   Not in our library10.1095/biolreprod49.4.764

6. 6.

   Broman K. W., 2012 Genotype probabilities at intermediate generations in the construction of recombinant inbred lines. Genetics 190: 403–412.

   Not in our library10.1534/genetics.111.132647

7. 7.

   Chesler E. J. Miller D. R. Branstetter L. R. Galloway L. D. Jackson B. L., 2008 The collaborative cross at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: developing a powerful resource for systems genetics. Mamm. Genome 19: 382–389.

   Not in our library10.1007/s00335-008-9135-8

8. 8.
   Diversity Outbred Mice at 21: Maintaining Allelic Variation in the Face of Selection · 2016

   Not checked
9. 9.

   Chick J. M. Munger S. C. Simecek P. Huttlin E. L. Choi K., 2016 Defining the consequences of genetic variation on a proteome-wide scale. Nature 534: 500–505.

   Not in our library10.1038/nature18270

10. 10.

    Churchill G. A. Airey D. C. Allayee H. Angel J. M. Attie A. D., 2004 The collaborative cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits. Nat. Genet. 36: 1133–1137.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng1104-1133

11. 11.

    Cingolani P. Platts A. Wang L. L. Coon M. Nguyen T., 2012 A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin) 6: 80–92.

    Not in our library10.4161/fly.19695

12. 12.

    Collaborative Cross Consortium, 2012 The genome architecture of the collaborative cross mouse genetic reference population. Genetics 190: 389–401.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.111.132639

13. 13.

    Crowley J. J. Zhabotynsky V. Sun W. Huang S. Pakatci I. K., 2015 Analyses of allele-specific gene expression in highly divergent mouse crosses identifies pervasive allelic imbalance. Nat. Genet. 47: 353–360.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.3222

14. 14.

    Cubillos F. A. Molinet J. Brice C. Tisné S. Abarca V., 2017 Identification of nitrogen consumption genetic variants in yeast through QTL mapping and Bulk segregant RNA-seq analyses. G3 7: 1693–1705.

    Not in our library10.1534/g3.117.042127

15. 15.

    Danecek P. Auton A. Abecasis G. Albers C. A. Banks E., 2011 The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27: 2156–2158.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btr330

16. 16.

    DePristo M. A. Banks E. Poplin R. Garimella K. V. Maguire J. R., 2011 A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat. Genet. 43: 491–498.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.806

17. 17.

    Didion J. P. Morgan A. P. Clayshulte A. M.-F. Mcmullan R. C. Yadgary L., 2015 A multi-megabase copy number gain causes maternal transmission ratio distortion on mouse Chromosome 2. PLoS Genet. 11: e1004850.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1004850

18. 18.

    Didion J. P. Morgan A. P. Yadgary L. Bell T. A. McMullan R. C., 2016 R2d2 drives selfish sweeps in the house mouse. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33: 1381–1395.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msw036

19. 19.

    Dobzhansky T., 1934 Studies on hybrid sterility. Z. Zellforsch. Mikrosk. Anat. 21: 169–223.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Dobzhansky T., 1936 Studies on hybrid sterility. II. Localization of sterility factors in Drosophila pseudoobscura hybrids. Genetics 21: 113–135.

    Not in our library10.1093/genetics/21.2.113

21. 21.

    Doran A. G. Wong K. Flint J. Adams D. J. Hunter K. W., 2016 Deep genome sequencing and variation analysis of 13 inbred mouse strains defines candidate phenotypic alleles, private variation and homozygous truncating mutations. Genome Biol. 17: 167.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13059-016-1024-y

22. 22.

    Durrant C. Tayem H. Yalcin B. Cleak J. Goodstadt L., 2011 Collaborative cross mice and their power to map host susceptibility to Aspergillus fumigatus infection. Genome Res. 21: 1239–1248.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.118786.110

23. 23.
    Modeling Host Genetic Regulation of Influenza Pathogenesis in the Collaborative Cross · 2013

    No notice
24. 24.

    Forejt J. Iványi P., 1974 Genetic studies on male sterility of hybrids between laboratory and wild mice (Mus musculus L.). Genet. Res. 24: 189–206.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0016672300015214

25. 25.

    Fouldes-Mathes W. Aylor D. L. Miller D. R. Churchill G. A. Chesler E. J., 2011 Architecture of energy balance traits in emerging lines of the collaborative cross. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 300: E1124–E1134.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpendo.00707.2010

26. 26.

    Fu, C.-P., C. E. Welsh, F. P.-M. de Villena, and L. McMillan, 2012 Inferring ancestry in admixed populations using microarray probe intensities, pp. 105–112 in: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine, BCB 2012. ACM, New York, NY.

    Not in our library

27. 27.
    Quantitative Trait Locus Mapping Methods for Diversity Outbred Mice · 2014

    No notice
28. 28.

    Good J. M. Dean M. D. Nachman M. W., 2008 A complex genetic basis to X–linked hybrid male sterility between two species of house mice. Genetics 179: 2213–2228.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.085340

29. 29.
    Genome Wide Identification of SARS-CoV Susceptibility Loci Using the Collaborative Cross · 2015

    No notice
30. 30.

    Gralinski L. E. Menachery V. D. Morgan A. P. Totura A. Beall A., 2017 Allelic variation in the toll-like receptor adaptor protein ticam2 contributes to SARS-coronavirus pathogenesis in mice. G3 (Bethesda) 7: 1653–1663.

    Not in our library10.1534/g3.117.041434

31. 31.

    Green R. Wilkins C. Thomas S. Sekine A. Hendrick D. M., 2017 Oas1b-dependent immune transcriptional profiles of west nile virus infection in the collaborative cross. G3 7: 1665–1682.

    Not in our library10.1534/g3.117.041624

32. 32.

    Handsaker R. E. Van doren V. Berman J. R. Genovese G. Kashin S., 2015 Large multiallelic copy number variations in humans. Nat. Genet. 47: 296–303.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.3200

33. 33.

    Holt J. McMillan L., 2014 Merging of multi-string BWTs with applications. Bioinformatics 30: 3524–3531.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btu584

34. 34.

    Huang X. Paulo M. J. Boer M. Effgen S. Keizer P., 2011 Analysis of natural allelic variation in Arabidopsis using a multiparent recombinant inbred line population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 4488–4493.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1100465108

35. 35.

    Huang S. Holt J. Kao C.-Y. McMillan L. Wang W., 2014 A novel multi-alignment pipeline for high-throughput sequencing data. Database 2014: pii: bau057.

    Not in our library10.1093/database/bau057

36. 36.

    Iraqi F. A. Churchill G. Mott R., 2008 The collaborative cross, developing a resource for mammalian systems genetics: a status report of the Wellcome Trust cohort. Mamm. Genome 19: 379–381.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00335-008-9113-1

37. 37.

    Keane T. M. Goodstadt L. Danecek P. White M. A. Wong K., 2011 Mouse genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation. Nature 477: 289–294.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10413

38. 38.

    Kelada S. N. P. Aylor D. L. Peck B. C. E. Ryan J. F. Tavarez U., 2012 Genetic analysis of hematological parameters in incipient lines of the collaborative cross. G3 2: 157–165.

    Not in our library10.1534/g3.111.001776

39. 39.

    King E. G. Long A. D., 2017 The Beavis effect in next-generation mapping panels in Drosophila melanogaster. G3 7: 1643–1652.

    Not in our library10.1534/g3.117.041426

40. 40.

    King E. G. Macdonald S. J. Long A. D., 2012 Properties and power of the Drosophila synthetic population resource for the routine dissection of complex traits. Genetics 191: 935–949.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.112.138537

Cited by papers we hold 1

• Host-pathogen genetic interactions underlie tuberculosis susceptibility in genetically diverse mice · 2022
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.