2010
DOI: 10.3724/sp.j.1006.2010.01100
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simulation Comparisons of Effectiveness among QTL Mapping Procedures of Different Statistical Genetic Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among these, MQM and CIM could only detect the additive and dominant effects, while ICIM and MIMR could be applied to estimate the additive, dominant, and epistatic effects. The obtained results, which shared some similar aspects with the results of a previous study (Su et al, 2010b and2013), revealed the importance of selecting the appropriate QTL mapping procedure for different populations, using different genetic models. Many research groups have previously analyzed the QTL mapping accuracy.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Among these, MQM and CIM could only detect the additive and dominant effects, while ICIM and MIMR could be applied to estimate the additive, dominant, and epistatic effects. The obtained results, which shared some similar aspects with the results of a previous study (Su et al, 2010b and2013), revealed the importance of selecting the appropriate QTL mapping procedure for different populations, using different genetic models. Many research groups have previously analyzed the QTL mapping accuracy.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Strategy of QTL mapping with multiple models proposed by Su et al (2010b) was adopted. Three QTL mapping methods, i.e.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, the mapping method also intimately affects the mapping results, and an inappropriate mapping method may result in erroneous judgment or false-positive (Su et al, 2010a). Composite interval mapping (CIM) and multiple QTL mapping (MQM) are suitable to detect QTLs when the data fit the genetic model of y = μ + a 1 + e, and multiple interval mapping with regression forward selection (MIMR), multiple interval mapping with forward search (MIMF) and inclusive composite interval mapping (ICIM) are suitable to detect QTLs when the data fit the genetic models of y = μ + a 1 + e and y = μ + a 1 + a 1 + a 1 a 2 + e, while composite interval mapping based on mixed linear model (MCIM) fits all models (Su et al, 2010b). Seven quality traits (GL, LWR, CGR, CD, GT, AC and GC) were analyzed using mixed major gene and polygene inheritance model, and results showed that epistatic effects were found in the genetic variation of those traits (Jiang et al, 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a recent study by Su et al (2010), the recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations were simulated based on four kinds of genetic models, including model I, additive QTL; model II, additive and epistatic QTL; model III, additive QTL and QTL 9 environment interaction, and model IV, additive QTL, epistatic QTL and QTL 9 environment interaction. Two sets of RIL data for each of the four models, in a total of eight sets of RIL data, were simulated and analyzed with the six popularly-used QTL mapping procedures, i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%