Genetica

, 136:351 | Cite as

Whole genome approaches to quantitative genetics

Article

Abstract

Apart from parent-offspring pairs and clones, relative pairs vary in the proportion of the genome that they share identical by descent. In the past, quantitative geneticists have used the expected value of sharing genes by descent to estimate genetic parameters and predict breeding values. With the possibility to genotype individuals for many markers across the genome it is now possible to empirically estimate the actual relationship between relatives. We review some of the theory underlying the variation in genetic identity, show applications to estimating genetic variance for height in humans and discuss other applications.

Keywords

Quantitative genetics Genome Identity-by-descent Estimation Genetic variance Actual relationship Realised relationship 

References

  1. Abecasis GR, Cherny SS, Cookson WO, Cardon LR (2002) Merlin-rapid analysis of dense genetic maps using sparse gene flow trees. Nat Genet 30:97–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bulmer MG (1985) The mathematical theory of quantitative genetics. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  4. Franklin IR (1977) The distribution of the proportion of the genome which is homozygous by descent in inbred individuals. Theor Popul Biol 11:60–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frazer KA, Ballinger DG, Cox DR, Hinds DA, Stuve LL, Gibbs RA, Belmont JW, Boudreau A, Hardenbol P, Leal SM et al (2007) A second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs. Nature 449:851–861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gagnon A, Beise J, Vaupel JW (2005) Genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing among CEPH siblings. Genet Epidemiol 29:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guo SW (1994) Computation of identity-by-descent proportions shared by two siblings. Am J Hum Genet 54:1104–1109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Guo SW (1995) Proportion of genome shared identical by descent by relatives: concept, computation, and applications. Am J Hum Genet 56:1468–1476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Guo SW (1996) Variation in genetic identity among relatives. Hum Hered 46:61–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haseman JK, Elston RC (1972) The investigation of linkage between a quantitative trait and a marker locus. Behav Genet 2:3–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill WG (1993a) Variation in genetic composition in backcrossing programs. J Hered 84:212–213Google Scholar
  12. Hill WG (1993b) Variation in genetic identity within kinships. Heredity 71:652–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kent JW Jr, Dyer TD, Blangero J (2005) Estimating the additive genetic effect of the X chromosome. Genet Epidemiol 29:377–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kong X, Murphy K, Raj T, He C, White PS, Matise TC (2004) A combined linkage-physical map of the human genome. Am J Hum Genet 75:1143–1148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Meuwissen TH, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Risch N, Lange K (1979) Application of a recombination model in calculating the variance of sib pair genetic identity. Ann Hum Genet 43:177–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stam P (1980) The distribution of the fraction of the genome identical by descent in finite random mating populations. Genet Res 35:131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stam P, Zeven AC (1981) The theoretical proportion of the donor genome in near-isogenic lines of self-fertilizers bred by backcrossing. Euphytica 30:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Suarez BK, Reich T, Fishman PM (1979) Variability in sib pair genetic identity. Hum Hered 29:37–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomas SC (2005) The estimation of genetic relationships using molecular markers and their efficiency in estimating heritability in natural populations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:1457–1467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas SC, Pemberton JM, Hill WG (2000) Estimating variance components in natural populations using inferred relationships. Heredity 84(Pt 4):427–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas SC, Coltman DW, Pemberton JM (2002) The use of marker-based relationship information to estimate the heritability of body weight in a natural population: a cautionary tale. J Evol Biol 15:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Visscher PM, Hopper JL (2001) Power of regression and maximum likelihood methods to map QTL from sib-pair and DZ twin data. Ann Hum Genet 65:583–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Visscher PM, Medland SE, Ferreira MA, Morley KI, Zhu G, Cornes BK, Montgomery GW, Martin NG (2006) Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS Genet 2:e41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Visscher PM, Macgregor S, Benyamin B, Zhu G, Gordon S, Medland S, Hill WG, Hottenga JJ, Willemsen G, Boomsma DI, Liu Y-Z, Deng HW, Montgomery GW, Martin NG (2007) Genome partitioning of genetic variation for height from 11, 214 sibling pairs. Am J Hum Genet 81:1104–1110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu S (2006) Population genetics: separating nurture from nature in estimating heritability. Heredity 97:256–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland Institute of Medical ResearchBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations