Literature DB >> 24162396

Detection of putative quantitative trait loci in line crosses under infinitesimal genetic models.

P M Visscher1, C S Haley.   

Abstract

Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping studies often employ segregating generations derived from a cross between genetically divergent inbred lines. In the analysis of such data it is customary to fit a single QTL and use a null hypothesis which assumes that the genomic region under study contributes no genetic variance. To explore the situation in which multiple linked genes contribute to the genetic variance, we simulated an F2-mapping experiment in which the genetic difference between the two original inbred strains was caused by a large number of loci, each having equal effect on the quantitative trait. QTLs were either in coupling, dispersion or repulsion phase in the base population of inbred lines, with the expected F2 genetic variance explained by the QTLs being equivalent in the three models. Where QTLs were in coupling phase, one inbred line was fixed for all plus alleles, and the other line was fixed for minus alleles. Where QTLs were in dispersion phase, they were assumed to be randomly fixed for one or other allele (as if the inbred lines had evolved from a common ancestor by random drift). Where QTLs were in repulsion phase alleles within an inbred line were alternating plus and minus at adjacent loci, and alternative alleles were fixed in the two inbred lines. In all these genetic models a standard interval mapping test statistic used to determine whether there is a QTL of large effect segregating in the population was inflated on average. Furthermore, the use of a threshold for QTL detection derived under the assumption that no QTLs were segregating would often lead to spurious conclusions regards the presence of genes of large effects (i.e. type I errors). The employment of an alternative model for the analysis, including linked markers as cofactors in the analysis of a single interval, reduced the problem of type I error rate, although test statistics were still inflated relative to the case of no QTLs. It is argued that in practice one should take into account the difference between the strains or the genetic variance in the F2 population when setting significance thresholds. In addition, tests designed to probe the adequacy of a single-QTL model or of an alternative infinitesimal coupling model are described. Such tests should be applied in QTL mapping studies to help dissect the true nature of genetic variation.

Year:  1996        PMID: 24162396     DOI: 10.1007/BF00224064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Theor Appl Genet        ISSN: 0040-5752            Impact factor:   5.699


  15 in total

1.  A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers.

Authors:  C S Haley; S A Knott
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Quantitative genetic variance associated with chromosomal markers in segregating populations.

Authors:  J C Dekkers; M R Dentine
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 5.699

3.  Mapping mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps.

Authors:  E S Lander; D Botstein
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  The power of methods for the detection of major genes affecting quantitative characters.

Authors:  I McMillan; A Robertson
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 3.821

5.  Theoretical basis for separation of multiple linked gene effects in mapping quantitative trait loci.

Authors:  Z B Zeng
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1993-12-01       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Approximate thresholds of interval mapping tests for QTL detection.

Authors:  A Rebaï; B Goffinet; B Mangin
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Power of daughter and granddaughter designs for determining linkage between marker loci and quantitative trait loci in dairy cattle.

Authors:  J I Weller; Y Kashi; M Soller
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.034

8.  Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling milk production in dairy cattle by exploiting progeny testing.

Authors:  M Georges; D Nielsen; M Mackinnon; A Mishra; R Okimoto; A T Pasquino; L S Sargeant; A Sorensen; M R Steele; X Zhao
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Controlling the type I and type II errors in mapping quantitative trait loci.

Authors:  R C Jansen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci for growth and fatness in pigs.

Authors:  L Andersson; C S Haley; H Ellegren; S A Knott; M Johansson; K Andersson; L Andersson-Eklund; I Edfors-Lilja; M Fredholm; I Hansson
Journal:  Science       Date:  1994-03-25       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  12 in total

1.  A large-sample QTL study in mice: I. Growth.

Authors:  Joao L Rocha; Eugene J Eisen; L Dale Van Vleck; Daniel Pomp
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.957

2.  Quantitative trait locus analysis using recombinant inbred intercrosses: theoretical and empirical considerations.

Authors:  Fei Zou; Jonathan A L Gelfond; David C Airey; Lu Lu; Kenneth F Manly; Robert W Williams; David W Threadgill
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-05-06       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Inference of the genetic architecture underlying BMI and height with the use of 20,240 sibling pairs.

Authors:  Gibran Hemani; Jian Yang; Anna Vinkhuyzen; Joseph E Powell; Gonneke Willemsen; Jouke-Jan Hottenga; Abdel Abdellaoui; Massimo Mangino; Ana M Valdes; Sarah E Medland; Pamela A Madden; Andrew C Heath; Anjali K Henders; Dale R Nyholt; Eco J C de Geus; Patrik K E Magnusson; Erik Ingelsson; Grant W Montgomery; Timothy D Spector; Dorret I Boomsma; Nancy L Pedersen; Nicholas G Martin; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Genome partitioning of genetic variation for height from 11,214 sibling pairs.

Authors:  Peter M Visscher; Stuart Macgregor; Beben Benyamin; Gu Zhu; Scott Gordon; Sarah Medland; William G Hill; Jouke-Jan Hottenga; Gonneke Willemsen; Dorret I Boomsma; Yao-Zhong Liu; Hong-Wen Deng; Grant W Montgomery; Nicholas G Martin
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Intersubspecific subcongenic mouse strain analysis reveals closely linked QTLs with opposite effects on body weight.

Authors:  Md Bazlur R Mollah; Akira Ishikawa
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 2.957

6.  Bayesian multiple quantitative trait loci mapping for recombinant inbred intercrosses.

Authors:  Zhongshang Yuan; Fei Zou; Yanyan Liu
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  The QTN program and the alleles that matter for evolution: all that's gold does not glitter.

Authors:  Matthew V Rockman
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  Genetic complexity of an obesity QTL ( Fob3) revealed by detailed genetic mapping.

Authors:  Ioannis M Stylianou; Julian K Christians; Peter D Keightley; Lutz Bünger; Michael Clinton; Grahame Bulfield; Simon Horvat
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.957

9.  Ghost QTL and hotspots in experimental crosses: novel approach for modeling polygenic effects.

Authors:  Jonas Wallin; Małgorzata Bogdan; Piotr A Szulc; R W Doerge; David O Siegmund
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Detection of multiple quantitative trait loci and their pleiotropic effects in outbred pig populations.

Authors:  Yoshitaka Nagamine; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Peter M Visscher; Chris S Haley
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.