| Literature DB >> 30894115 |
Clémence Fraslin1,2, Nicolas Dechamp1, Maria Bernard3, Francine Krieg1, Caroline Hervet1,4, René Guyomard1, Diane Esquerré5, Johanna Barbieri5, Claire Kuchly5, Eric Duchaud6, Pierre Boudinot6, Tatiana Rochat6, Jean-François Bernardet6, Edwige Quillet7.
Abstract
After publication of this work [1], we noted that there was an error in Table 3 Line 4.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30894115 PMCID: PMC6427846 DOI: 10.1186/s12711-019-0451-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Sel Evol ISSN: 0999-193X Impact factor: 4.297
Results of QTL analysis using the model M2 for resistance trait following injection or immersion challenges
| Infection route | QTL | LRTmax | Position (cM) | CI (95%) | Increase in survival rate | Resistance origin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed_R (%) | Fixed_S (%) | Fixed_R | Fixed_S | |||||||
| IMMERSION | Omy17 | 13.97* | 61 | 0–92 | 38 | 7 | AP2 | AP2 | *** | NS |
| Omy25a | 10.41* | 4 | 0–35 | 10 | 18 | B57 | B57 | *** | NS | |
|
| ||||||||||
| INJECTION | aOmy3 | 15.27** | 89 | 46–105 | 16 | 47 | AP2 | AP2 | *** | *** |
| IMMERSION | bOmy21 | 15.35** | 97 | 63–104 | 4 | 39 | B57 | B57 | *** | *** |
| bOmy3 | 40.73*** | 87 | 82–93 | 20 | 55 | AP2 | AP2 | *** | *** | |
| cOmy3 | 35.66*** | 87 | 81–94 | 17 | 44 | AP2 | AP2 | *** | *** | |
| INJECTION | aOmy29.2 | 14.85* | 23 | 8–49 | 5 | 48 | B57 | AP2 | *** | * |
| Omy17 | 15.85** | 73 | 53–79 | 11 | 53 | AP2 | B57 | *** | *** | |
| IMMERSION | Omy7.2 | 11.48* | 7 | 0–103 | 5 | 31 | AP2 | B57 | *** | *** |
|
| ||||||||||
| INJECTION | dOmy25a | 25.49*** | 14 | 10–18 | 53 | 16 | B57 | B57 | *** | * |
| dOmy3 | 35.35*** | 89 | 86–92 | 59 | 22 | AP2 | AP2 | *** | *** | |
| Omy26 | 11.75* | 18 | 0–34 | 30 | 26 | AP2 | AP2 | *** | *** | |
| INJECTION | Omy17 | 18.29*** | 74 | 58–92 | 47 | 11 | AP2 | B57 | *** | *** |
| IMMERSION | Omy24 | 12.71* | 4 | 0–19 | 20 | 1 | B57 | AP2 | *** | *** |
|
| ||||||||||
| IMMERSION | Omy7.1 | 16.42** | 61 | 32–87 | 19 | 19 | B57 | AP2 | *** | *** |
The table presents chromosome-wide or genome-wide significant QTL detected for STATUS using model M2; Reciprocal interactions could be tested only for QTL detected in the first STATUS analysis (model M1); LRTmax = maximum of likelihood ratio test; Position in the genetic map in centimorgans (cM); CI = confidence interval; Chromosome-wide significant = *P ≤ 0.01; Genome-wide significant = **P ≤ 0.05 or ***P ≤ 0.01; P values for fixed effect and interaction corrected with Benjamini–Hochberg method: Non-significant = NS; *P value ≤ 0.05; ***P value ≤ 0.001
aThe reciprocal interaction could not be tested as a new QTL (Omy29.2-QTL) was detected with the reciprocal model
b,dReciprocal models for QTL pairs
cThe QTL in the reciprocal model (Omy2-QTL) was only suggestive (P ≤ 0.05) at the chromosome-wide level