Abstract
With the development of molecular markers, dissection of complex quantitative traits by mapping the underlying genetic factors has become a major research area in plant breeding. Here, we report results from a vast QTL mapping experiment in maize with testcrosses of N= 976 F4:5 lines evaluated in E= 16 environments. Although the number of detected QTL confirmed the infinitesimal model of quantitative genetics (e.g., 30 QTL detected with LOD ≥ 2.5 for plant height, explaining p= 61% of the genetic variance), cross validation (CV) still revealed an upward bias of about 10% in p. With smaller values of N (122, 244, 488) and E (2, 4), the number of detected QTL decreased, but the estimates of p remained almost the same due to a tremendous increase in the bias. This illustrates that QTL effects obtained from smaller sample sizes are usually highly inflated, leading to an overly optimistic assessment of the prospects of MAS. Moreover, inferences about the genetic architecture (number of QTL and their effects) of complex traits cannot be achieved reliably with smaller sample sizes. Based on simulations, we conclude that CV and one method of bootstrapping (BS) performed well with regard to yielding realistic estimates of p. In addition, we briefly review progress in new biometric methods and approaches to QTL mapping in plants including Bayesian methods that show great promise to overcome the present limitations of QTL mapping.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allison, D.B., J.R. Fernandez, H. Moonseong, Z. Shankuan & C. Etzel, 2002. Bias in estimates of quantitative-trait-locus effect in genome scans: Demonstration of the phenomenon and a method-of-moments procedure for reducing bias. Am J Hum Genet 70: 575–585.
Asins, M.J., 2002. Present and future of quantitative trait locus analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding 121: 281–291.
Ball, R.D., 2001. Bayesian methods for quantitative trait loci mapping based on model selection: Approximate analysis using the Bayesian information criterion. Genetics 59: 1351–1364.
Beavis, W.D., 1998. QTL analyses: Power, precision and accuracy. In: A.H. Paterson (Ed.), Molecular Dissection of Complex Traits, pp. 145–162. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
Bennewitz, J., N. Reinsch & E. Kalm, 2002. Improved confidence intervals in quantitative trait loci mapping by permutation boot strapping. Genetics 160: 1673–1686.
Boer, M.P., C.J. V ter Braak & R.C. Jansen, 2002. A penalized likelihood method for mapping epistatic quantitative trait loci with one-dimensional genome searches. Genetics 162: 951–960.
Breiman, L. & P. Spector, 1992. Submodel selection and evaluation in regression. The X-random case. Int Stat Rev 60: 291–319.
Charcosset, A. & A. Gallais, 1996. Estimation of the contribution of quantitative trait loci (QTL) to the variance of a quantitative trait by means of genetic markers. Theor Appl Genet 93: 1193–1201.
Doerge, R.W., 2002. Mapping and analysis of quantitative trait loci in experimental populations. Nat Rev Genet 3: 43–52.
Doerge, R.W. & J. Churchill, 1996. Permutation tests for multiple loci affecting a quantitative character. Genetics 142: 285–294.
Efron, B., 1983. Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: Improvement on cross-validation. J Amer Statist Ass 78: 316–330.
Efron, B. & R.J. Tibshirani, 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, London.
Fisher, R.A., 1918. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans Roy Soc Edin 52: 399–433.
Georges, M., D. Nielsen, M. Mackinnon, A. Mishra & R. Okimoto, 1995. Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling milk production in dairy cattle by exploiting progeny testing. Genetics 139: 07–920.
Göring, H.H.H., J.D. Terwilliger & J. Blangero, 2001. Large upward bias in estimation of locus-specific effects from genomewide scans. Am J Hum Genet 69: 1357–1369.
Hackett, C.A., 2002. Statistical methods for QTL mapping in cereals. Plant Mol Biol 48: 585–599.
Hjorth, J.S.U., 1994. Computer Intensive Statistical Methods. Validation Model Selection and Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, London.
Jannink, J.-L., M.C. Bink & R.C. Jansen, 2001. Using complex plant pedigrees to map valuable genes. Trends Plant Sci 6: 337–342.
Jansen, R.C., 2001. Quantitative trait loci in inbred lines. pp. 567–597. In: D.J. Balding, M. Bishop & G. Gannings. (Ed.), Handbook of Statistical Genetics. Wiley, New York.
Jansen, R.C., J.-L. Jannink & W.D. Beavis, 2003. Mapping quantitative trait loci in plant breeding populations: Use of parental haplotype sharing. Crop Sci 43: 829–834.
Jiang, C. & Z.-B. Zeng, 1995. Multiple trait analysis of genetic mapping for quantitative trait loci. Genetics 140: 1111–1127.
Kao, C.-H., Z.-B. Zeng & R.D. Teasdale, 1999. Multiple interval mapping for quantitative trait loci. Genetics 152: 1203–1216.
Knapp, S.J. & W. C. Bridges, 1990. Using molecular markers to estimate quantitative trait locus parameters: Power and genetic variances for unreplicated and replicated progeny. Genetics 126: 769–777.
Lebreton, C.M. & P.M. Visscher, 1998. Empirical nonparametric bootstrap strategies in quantitative trait loci mapping: Conditioning on the genetic model. Genetics 148: 525–535.
Melchinger, A.E., H.F. Utz & C.C. Schön, 1998. QTL mapping using different testers and independent population samples in maize reveals low power of QTL detection and large bias in estimates of QTL effects. Genetics 149: 383–403.
Melchinger, A.E., H.F. Utz & C.C. Schön, 2000. From Mendel to Fisher. The power and limits of QTL mapping for quantitative traits. Vortr Pflanzenzüchtg 48: 132–142.
Meuwissen, T.H.E., B.J. Hayes & M.E. Goddard, 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157: 1819–1829.
Moreau, L., A. Charcosset, F. Hospital & A. Gallais, 1998. Marker-assisted selection efficiency in populations of finite size. Genetics 148: 1353–1365.
Schön, C.C., H.F. Utz, S. Groh, B. Truberg, S. Openshaw & A.E. Melchinger, 2004. QTL mapping based on resampling in a vast maize testcross experiment confirms the infinitesimal model of quantitative genetics for complex traits. Genetics 167: 485–498.
Sen, S. & G.A. Churchill, 2001. A statistical framework for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 159: 371–387.
Shao, J., 1996. Bootstrap model selection. J Amer Statist Ass 91: 655–665.
Sillanpää, M.J. & J. Corander, 2002. Model choice in gene mapping: What and why. Trends in Genetics 18: 301–307.
Utz, H.F. & A.E. Melchinger, 1994. Comparison of different approaches to interval mapping of quantitative trait loci. In: J.W. Van Ooijen and J. Jansen (Eds.), Biometrics in Plant Breeding: Applications of Molecular Markers. Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the EUCARPIA Section Biometrics in Plant Breeding, 6–8 July, 1994, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 195–204.
Utz, H.F. & A.E. Melchinger, 1996. PLABQTL: A program for composite interval mapping of QTL. J Quant Trait Loci 2(1).
Utz, H.F., A.E. Melchinger & C.C. Schön, 2000. Bias and sampling error of the estimated proportion of genotypic variance explained by quantitative trait loci determined from experimental data in maize using cross validation and validation with independent samples. Genetics 154: 1839–1849.
Walsh, B., 2001. Quantitative Genetics in the age of genomics. Theoret Pop Biol 59: 175–184.
Xu, S., 2003. Estimating polygenic effects using markers of the entire genome. Genetics 163: 789–801.
Yi, N. & S. Xu, 2001. Bayesian mapping of quantitative trait loci under complicated mating designs. Genetics 157: 1759–1771.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Melchinger, A., Utz, H. & Schön, C. QTL analyses of complex traits with cross validation, bootstrapping and other biometric methods. Euphytica 137, 1–11 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EUPH.0000040498.48379.68
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EUPH.0000040498.48379.68