Design and Construction of Recombinant Inbred Lines

  • Daniel A. Pollard
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 871)


Recombinant inbred lines (RILs) are a collection of strains that can be used to map quantitative trait loci. Parent strains are crossed to create recombinants that are then inbred to isogenicity, resulting in a permanent resource for trait mapping and analysis. Here I describe the process of designing and constructing RILs. This consists of the following steps. Parent strains are selected based on phenotype, marker availability, and compatibility, and they may be genetically engineered to remove unwanted variation or to introduce reporters. A construction design scheme is determined, including the target population size, if and how advanced intercrossing will be done, and the number of generations of inbreeding. Parent crosses and F1 crosses are performed to create an F2 population. Depending on design, advanced intercrossing may be implemented to increase mapping resolution through the accumulation of additional meiotic crossover events. Finally, lines are inbred to create genetically stable recombinant lines. I discuss tips and techniques for maximizing mapping power and resolution and minimizing resource investment for each stage of the process.

Key words

Recombinant inbred line Quantitative trait loci Advanced intercross Inbred line Breeding design Linkage map Marker density Mapping resolution Mapping power Drift 


  1. 1.
    Bailey DW (1971) Recombinant-inbred strains. An aid to finding identity, linkage, and function of histocompatibility and other genes. Transplantation 11:325–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haldane JB, Waddington CH (1931) Inbreeding and linkage. Genetics 16:357–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teuscher F, Guiard V, Rudolph PE, Brockmann GA (2005) The map expansion obtained with recombinant inbred strains and intermated recombinant inbred populations for finite generation designs. Genetics 170:875–879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seidel HS, Rockman MV, Kruglyak L (2008) Widespread genetic incompatibility in C. elegans maintained by balancing selection. Science 319:589–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felix MA (2008) RNA interference in nematodes and the chance that favored Sydney Brenner. J Biol 7:34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rockman MV, Kruglyak L (2008) Breeding designs for recombinant inbred advanced intercross lines. Genetics 179:1069–1078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagylaki T (1992) Introduction to theoretical population genetics. Springer, Berlin, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kimura M, Crow JF (1963) On maximum avoidance of inbreeding. Genet Res 4:399–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright S (1921) Systems of mating. II. The effects of inbreeding on the genetic composition of a population. Genetics 6:124–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crow JF, Kimura M (1970) An introduction to population genetics theory. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Churchill GA, Airey DC, Allayee H, Angel JM, Attie AD, Beatty J et al (2004) The collaborative cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits. Nat Genet 36:1133–1137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ebert RH 2nd, Cherkasova VA, Dennis RA, Wu JH, Ruggles S, Perrin TE et al (1993) Longevity-determining genes in Caenorhabditis elegans: chromosomal mapping of multiple noninteractive loci. Genetics 135:1003–1010PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiologyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations