Cargando…

Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses

Selective genotyping is common because it can increase the expected correlation between QTL genotype and phenotype and thus increase the statistical power of linkage tests (i.e., regression-based tests). Linkage can also be tested by assessing whether the marginal genotypic distribution conforms to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beasley, T Mark, Yang, Dongyan, Yi, Nengjun, Bullard, Daniel C, Travis, Elizabeth L, Amos, Christopher I, Xu, Shizhong, Allison, David B
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-36-6-601
_version_ 1782168302729035776
author Beasley, T Mark
Yang, Dongyan
Yi, Nengjun
Bullard, Daniel C
Travis, Elizabeth L
Amos, Christopher I
Xu, Shizhong
Allison, David B
author_facet Beasley, T Mark
Yang, Dongyan
Yi, Nengjun
Bullard, Daniel C
Travis, Elizabeth L
Amos, Christopher I
Xu, Shizhong
Allison, David B
author_sort Beasley, T Mark
collection PubMed
description Selective genotyping is common because it can increase the expected correlation between QTL genotype and phenotype and thus increase the statistical power of linkage tests (i.e., regression-based tests). Linkage can also be tested by assessing whether the marginal genotypic distribution conforms to its expectation, a marginal-based test. We developed a class of joint tests that, by constraining intercepts in regression-based analyses, capitalize on the information available in both regression-based and marginal-based tests. We simulated data corresponding to the null hypothesis of no QTL effect and the alternative of some QTL effect at the locus for a backcross and an F2 intercross between inbred strains. Regression-based and marginal-based tests were compared to corresponding joint tests. We studied the effects of random sampling, selective sampling from a single tail of the phenotypic distribution, and selective sampling from both tails of the phenotypic distribution. Joint tests were nearly as powerful as all competing alternatives for random sampling and two-tailed selection under both backcross and F2 intercross situations. Joint tests were generally more powerful for one-tailed selection under both backcross and F2 intercross situations. However, joint tests cannot be recommended for one-tailed selective genotyping if segregation distortion is suspected.
format Text
id pubmed-2697196
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26971962009-06-16 Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses Beasley, T Mark Yang, Dongyan Yi, Nengjun Bullard, Daniel C Travis, Elizabeth L Amos, Christopher I Xu, Shizhong Allison, David B Genet Sel Evol Research Selective genotyping is common because it can increase the expected correlation between QTL genotype and phenotype and thus increase the statistical power of linkage tests (i.e., regression-based tests). Linkage can also be tested by assessing whether the marginal genotypic distribution conforms to its expectation, a marginal-based test. We developed a class of joint tests that, by constraining intercepts in regression-based analyses, capitalize on the information available in both regression-based and marginal-based tests. We simulated data corresponding to the null hypothesis of no QTL effect and the alternative of some QTL effect at the locus for a backcross and an F2 intercross between inbred strains. Regression-based and marginal-based tests were compared to corresponding joint tests. We studied the effects of random sampling, selective sampling from a single tail of the phenotypic distribution, and selective sampling from both tails of the phenotypic distribution. Joint tests were nearly as powerful as all competing alternatives for random sampling and two-tailed selection under both backcross and F2 intercross situations. Joint tests were generally more powerful for one-tailed selection under both backcross and F2 intercross situations. However, joint tests cannot be recommended for one-tailed selective genotyping if segregation distortion is suspected. BioMed Central 2004-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2697196/ /pubmed/15496283 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-36-6-601 Text en Copyright © 2004 INRA, EDP Sciences
spellingShingle Research
Beasley, T Mark
Yang, Dongyan
Yi, Nengjun
Bullard, Daniel C
Travis, Elizabeth L
Amos, Christopher I
Xu, Shizhong
Allison, David B
Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses
title Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses
title_full Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses
title_fullStr Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses
title_full_unstemmed Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses
title_short Joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses
title_sort joint tests for quantitative trait loci in experimental crosses
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-36-6-601
work_keys_str_mv AT beasleytmark jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses
AT yangdongyan jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses
AT yinengjun jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses
AT bullarddanielc jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses
AT traviselizabethl jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses
AT amoschristopheri jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses
AT xushizhong jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses
AT allisondavidb jointtestsforquantitativetraitlociinexperimentalcrosses