Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 110, Issue 6, pp 1061–1067 | Cite as

Power of in silico QTL mapping from phenotypic, pedigree, and marker data in a hybrid breeding program

Original Paper

Abstract

Most quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping studies in plants have used designed mapping populations. As an alternative to traditional QTL mapping, in silico mapping via a mixed-model approach simultaneously exploits phenotypic, genotypic, and pedigree data already available in breeding programs. The statistical power of this in silico mapping method, however, remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the power of in silico mapping via a mixed-model approach in hybrid crops. We used maize (Zea mays L.) as a model species to study, by computer simulation, the influence of number of QTLs (20 or 80), heritability (0.40 or 0.70), number of markers (200 or 400), and sample size (600 or 2,400 hybrids). We found that the average power to detect QTLs ranged from 0.11 to 0.59 for a significance level of α=0.01, and from 0.01 to 0.47 for α=0.0001. The false discovery rate ranged from 0.22 to 0.74 for α=0.01, and from 0.05 to 0.46 for α=0.0001. As with designed mapping experiments, a large sample size, high marker density, high heritability, and small number of QTLs led to the highest power for in silico mapping via a mixed-model approach. The power to detect QTLs with large effects was greater than the power to detect QTL with small effects. We conclude that gene discovery in hybrid crops can be initiated by in silico mapping. Finding an acceptable compromise, however, between the power to detect QTL and the proportion of false QTL would be necessary.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This 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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: lessons from comparative QTL approach to multiple testing. J R Statist Soc B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  3. Bernardo R (1996) Best linear unbiased prediction of maize single-cross performance. Crop Sci 36:50–56Google Scholar
  4. Bernardo R (1998) Predicting the performance of untested single crosses: trait and marker data. In: Lamkey KR, Staub JE (eds) Concepts and breeding of heterosis in crop plants. Crop Science Society of America, Madison, pp 117–127Google Scholar
  5. Bernardo R (2004) What proportion of declared QTL in plants are false? Theor Appl Genet 109:419–424Google Scholar
  6. Delacy IH, Cooper M (1990) Pattern analysis for the analysis of regional variety trials. In: Kang MS (ed) Genotype-by-environments interaction and plant breeding. Louisiana State University Agriculture Centre, Louisiana, pp 287–300Google Scholar
  7. Doerge RW, Zeng Z-B, Weir BS (1994) Statistical issues in the search for genes affecting quantitative traits in populations. In: Analysis of molecular marker data. Joint Plant Breed Symp Ser. American Society for Horticulture Science, Crop Science Society of America, Madison, pp 15–26Google Scholar
  8. Emik LO, Terrill CE (1949) Systematic procedures for calculating inbreeding coefficients. J Hered 40:51–55Google Scholar
  9. Fernando RL, Nettleton D, Southey BR, Dekkers JCM, Rothschild MF, Soller M (2004) Controlling the proportion of false positives in multiple dependent tests. Genetics 166:611–619Google Scholar
  10. Glazier AM, Nadeau JH, Aitman TJ (2002) Finding genes that underlie complex traits. Science 298:2345–2349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grupe A, Germer S, Usuka J, Aud D, Belknap JK, Klein RF, Ahluwalia MK, Higuchi R, Peltz G (2001) In silico mapping of complex disease-related traits in mice. Science 292:1915–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haley CS, Knott SA (1992) A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers. Heredity 69:315–324Google Scholar
  13. Hallauer AR (1990) Methods used in developing maize inbreds. Maydica 35:1–16Google Scholar
  14. Henderson CR (1984) Application of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson CR (1985) Best linear unbiased prediction of nonadditive genetic merits in noninbred populations. J Anim Sci 60:111–117Google Scholar
  16. Kearsey MJ, Farquhar AGL (1998) QTL analysis in plants; where are we now? Heredity 80:137–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy BW, Quinton M, van Arendonk JAM (1992) Estimation of effects of single genes on quantitative trait. J Anim Sci 70:2000–2012Google Scholar
  18. Lande R, Thompson R (1990) Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124:743–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lander ES, Botstein D (1989) Mapping Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics 121:185–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Assoc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackay TFC (2001) The genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Annu Rev Genet 35:303–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Panter DM, Allen FL (1995) Using best linear unbiased predictions to enhance breeding for yield in soybean: I. Choosing parents. Crop Sci 35:397–405Google Scholar
  23. Parisseaux B, Bernardo R (2004) In silico mapping of quantitative trait loci in maize. Theor Appl Genet 109:508–514Google Scholar
  24. Senior ML, Chin ECL, Lee M, Smith JSC, Stuber CW (1996) Simple sequence repeat markers developed from maize sequence found in the GENEBANK database: map construction. Crop Sci 36:1676–1683Google Scholar
  25. 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, pp 277–285Google Scholar
  26. Utz HF, Melchinger AE (1994) Comparison of different approaches to interval mapping of quantitative trait loci. In: van Ooijen JW, Janse J (eds) Biometrics in plant breeding: applications of molecular markers. CPRO-DLO, Wageningen, pp 195–204Google Scholar
  27. Whittaker JC, Thompson R, Visscher PM (1996) On the mapping of QTL by regression of phenotypes on marker-type. Heredity 77:23–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Plant GeneticsUniversity of Minnesota St. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Genomic DiversityCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations