English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Regression interval mapping and multiple interval mapping are compared with regard to mapping linked quantitative trait loci (QTL) in inbred-line cross experiments. For that purpose, a simulation study was performed using genetic models with two linked QTL. Data were simulated for F(2) populations of different sizes and with all QTL and marker alleles fixed for alternative alleles in the parental lines. The criteria for comparison are power of QTL identification and the accuracy of the QTL position and effect estimates. Further, the estimates of the relative QTL variance are assessed. There are distinct differences in the QTL position estimates between the two methods. Multiple interval mapping tends to be more powerful as compared to regression interval mapping. Multiple interval mapping further leads to more accurate QTL position and QTL effect estimates. The superiority increased with wider marker intervals and larger population sizes. If QTL are in repulsion, the differences between the two methods are very pronounced. For both methods, the reduction of the marker interval size from 10 to 5 cM increases power and greatly improves QTL parameter estimates. This contrasts with findings in the literature for single QTL scenarios, where a marker density of 10 cM is generally considered as sufficient. The use of standard (asymptotic) statistical theory for the computation of the standard errors of the QTL position and effect estimates proves to give much too optimistic standard errors for regression interval mapping as well as for multiple interval mapping.

A comparison of regression interval mapping and multiple interval mapping for linked QTL