Skip to main content
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1998 May;149(1):383–403. doi: 10.1093/genetics/149.1.383

Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping using different testers and independent population samples in maize reveals low power of QTL detection and large bias in estimates of QTL effects.

A E Melchinger 1, H F Utz 1, C C Schön 1
PMCID: PMC1460144  PMID: 9584111

Abstract

The efficiency of marker-assisted selection (MAS) depends on the power of quantitative trait locus (QTL) detection and unbiased estimation of QTL effects. Two independent samples N = 344 and 107 of F2 plants were genotyped for 89 RFLP markers. For each sample, testcross (TC) progenies of the corresponding F3 lines with two testers were evaluated in four environments. QTL for grain yield and other agronomically important traits were mapped in both samples. QTL effects were estimated from the same data as used for detection and mapping of QTL (calibration) and, based on QTL positions from calibration, from the second, independent sample (validation). For all traits and both testers we detected a total of 107 QTL with N = 344, and 39 QTL with N = 107, of which only 20 were in common. Consistency of QTL effects across testers was in agreement with corresponding genotypic correlations between the two TC series. Most QTL displayed no significant QTL x environment nor epistatic interactions. Estimates of the proportion of the phenotypic and genetic variance explained by QTL were considerably reduced when derived from the independent validation sample as opposed to estimates from the calibration sample. We conclude that, unless QTL effects are estimated from an independent sample, they can be inflated, resulting in an overly optimistic assessment of the efficiency of MAS.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (247.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cheverud J. M., Routman E. J., Duarte F. A., van Swinderen B., Cothran K., Perel C. Quantitative trait loci for murine growth. Genetics. 1996 Apr;142(4):1305–1319. doi: 10.1093/genetics/142.4.1305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cockerham C. C., Zeng Z. B. Design III with marker loci. Genetics. 1996 Jul;143(3):1437–1456. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.3.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Georges M., Nielsen D., Mackinnon M., Mishra A., Okimoto R., Pasquino A. T., Sargeant L. S., Sorensen A., Steele M. R., Zhao X. Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling milk production in dairy cattle by exploiting progeny testing. Genetics. 1995 Feb;139(2):907–920. doi: 10.1093/genetics/139.2.907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Haley C. S., Knott S. A. A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers. Heredity (Edinb) 1992 Oct;69(4):315–324. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1992.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jansen R. C., Stam P. High resolution of quantitative traits into multiple loci via interval mapping. Genetics. 1994 Apr;136(4):1447–1455. doi: 10.1093/genetics/136.4.1447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jiang C., Zeng Z. B. Multiple trait analysis of genetic mapping for quantitative trait loci. Genetics. 1995 Jul;140(3):1111–1127. doi: 10.1093/genetics/140.3.1111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lande R., Thompson R. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics. 1990 Mar;124(3):743–756. doi: 10.1093/genetics/124.3.743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lander E. S., Botstein D. Mapping mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics. 1989 Jan;121(1):185–199. doi: 10.1093/genetics/121.1.185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lander E. S., Green P., Abrahamson J., Barlow A., Daly M. J., Lincoln S. E., Newberg L. A., Newburg L. MAPMAKER: an interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics. 1987 Oct;1(2):174–181. doi: 10.1016/0888-7543(87)90010-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Li Z., Pinson S. R., Park W. D., Paterson A. H., Stansel J. W. Epistasis for three grain yield components in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Genetics. 1997 Feb;145(2):453–465. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.2.453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sax K. The Association of Size Differences with Seed-Coat Pattern and Pigmentation in PHASEOLUS VULGARIS. Genetics. 1923 Nov;8(6):552–560. doi: 10.1093/genetics/8.6.552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Tanksley S. D. Mapping polygenes. Annu Rev Genet. 1993;27:205–233. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.27.120193.001225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Visscher P. M., Thompson R., Haley C. S. Confidence intervals in QTL mapping by bootstrapping. Genetics. 1996 Jun;143(2):1013–1020. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.2.1013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Xu S. A comment on the simple regression method for interval mapping. Genetics. 1995 Dec;141(4):1657–1659. doi: 10.1093/genetics/141.4.1657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Zeng Z. B. Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics. 1994 Apr;136(4):1457–1468. doi: 10.1093/genetics/136.4.1457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES