Power of mixed-model QTL mapping from phenotypic, pedigree and marker data in self-pollinated crops
- 249 Downloads
The power of QTL mapping by a mixed-model approach has been studied for hybrid crops but remains unknown in self-pollinated crops. Our objective was to evaluate the usefulness of mixed-model QTL mapping in the context of a breeding program for a self-pollinated crop. Specifically, we simulated a soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) breeding program and applied a mixed-model approach that comprised three steps: variance component estimation, single-marker analyses, and multiple-marker analysis. Average power to detect QTL ranged from <1 to 47% depending on the significance level (0.01 or 0.0001), number of QTL (20 or 80), heritability of the trait (0.40 or 0.70), population size (600 or 1,200 inbreds), and number of markers (300 or 600). The corresponding false discovery rate ranged from 2 to 43%. Larger populations, higher heritability, and fewer QTL controlling the trait led to a substantial increase in power and to a reduction in the false discovery rate and bias. A stringent significance level reduced both the power and false discovery rate. There was greater power to detect major QTL than minor QTL. Power was higher and the false discovery rate was lower in hybrid crops than in self-pollinated crops. We conclude that mixed-model QTL mapping is useful for gene discovery in plant breeding programs of self-pollinated crops.
The research was funded by the United States Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (Plant Genomics – Bioinformatics) and supported in part by the University of Minnesota Supercomputing Institute (UMSI). We thank Dr. Shuxia Zhang of UMSI for technical support.
- Arbelbide M, Bernardo R (2005) Mixed-model QTL mapping for kernel hardness and dough strength in bread wheat. Theor Appl Genet (DOI 10.1007/s00122-005-0190-1)Google Scholar
- Beavis WD (1994) The power and deceit of QTL experiments: lessons from comparative QTL studies. Proc Corn Sorghum Ind Res Conf 49:250–266Google Scholar
- Beavis WD (1998) QTL analyses: power, precision, and accuracy. In: Paterson AH (ed) Molecular dissection of complex traits. CRC Press, Boca Raton , pp 145–162Google Scholar
- Delacy IH, Cooper M (1990) Pattern analysis for the analysis of regional variety trials. In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. Louisiana State Univ Agr Cent, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
- Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, Ontario Google Scholar
- Smith JSC, Ertl DS, Orman BA (1995) Identification of maize varieties. In: Wrigley CW (ed) Identification of food-grain varieties. Am Assoc Cereal Chemists, St Paul, pp 253–264Google Scholar
- Smith OS, Hoard K, Shaw F, Shaw R (1999) Prediction of single-cross performance. In: Coors JG, Pandey S (eds) The genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. Am Soc Agron Crop Sci, Crop Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 277–285Google Scholar
- Smith S, Beavis W (1996) Molecular marker assisted breeding in a company environment. In: Sobral BWS (ed) The impact of plant molecular genetics. Birkhauser, Boston, pp 259–272Google Scholar
- Xu S, Atchley WR (1995) A random model approach to interval mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics 93:580–586Google Scholar