- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Email this article to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Coppieters, W.
- Articles by Georges, M.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Coppieters, W.
- Articles by Georges, M.
A Rank-Based Nonparametric Method for Mapping Quantitative Trait Loci in Outbred Half-Sib Pedigrees: Application to Milk Production in a Granddaughter Design
Wouter Coppietersa, Alexandre Kvasza, Frédéric Farnira, Juan-Jose Arranza, Bernard Grisarta, Margaret Mackinnonb, and Michel Georgesaa Department of Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium
b Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, United Kingdom
Corresponding author: Michel Georges, Department of Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège (B43), 20 Bd de Colonster, 4000 Liège, Belgium, michel{at}stat.fmv.ulg.ac.be (E-mail).
Communicating editor: Z-B. ZENG
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
We describe the development of a multipoint nonparametric quantitative trait loci mapping method based on the Wilcoxon rank-sum test applicable to outbred half-sib pedigrees. The method has been evaluated on a simulated dataset and its efficiency compared with interval mapping by using regression. It was shown that the rank-based approach is slightly inferior to regression when the residual variance is homoscedastic normal; however, in three out of four other scenarios envisaged, i.e., residual variance heteroscedastic normal, homoscedastic skewed, and homoscedastic positively kurtosed, the latter outperforms the former one. Both methods were applied to a real data set analyzing the effect of bovine chromosome 6 on milk yield and composition by using a 125-cM map comprising 15 microsatellites and a granddaughter design counting 1158 Holstein-Friesian sires.
RECENT developments in DNA marker technology, such as the discovery of microsatellites (![]()
![]()
![]()
These maps increasingly are applied to locate genes underlying inheritable phenotypes of interest. Several of the most relevant phenotypes are continuously distributed quantitative traits involving multiple polygenes or quantitative trait loci (QTL), as well as nongenetic effects. Experimental back- and intercrosses are often the preferred design to map QTL. However, in a number of agriculturally important species (notably cattle and pine trees), reproductive cycles and breeding designs have led to the generation of extensive half-sib pedigrees that are readily available for QTL mapping. A well-documented example of this is the so-called granddaughter design to map genes underlying milk production in commercial cattle populations (![]()
A number of mapping methods have been applied to such half-sib designs, including single-marker regression (e.g., ![]()
![]()
![]()
Recently, ![]()
In this article, we describe the adaptation of this method to half-sib pedigrees in outbred populations and apply it to milk production in a granddaughter design. A computer program to implement this approach has been developed and is available from the authors upon request.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
A QTL interval mapping procedure based on the Wilcoxon rank-sum testgeneral principles:
To measure the evidence in favor of a QTL at a given map position, ![]()
![]() |
(1) |
![]() |
(2) |
Under the null hypothesis of no QTL, ZW is shown to behave asymptotically as a standard normal variable that reduces to a Wilcoxon rank-sum test at the marker positions.
Adaptation to outbred half-sib designs:
The method developed by ![]()
Calculation of P[gi,A(s)|gi,L,gi,R] requires knowledge of the sire's marker linkage phase. In the absence of grandparental marker information, the most likely linkage phase is first estimated from the marker genotypes of the offspring. This is accomplished by calculating the likelihood of the pedigree data under the 2x/2 possible phases (assuming x informative markers) as follows (![]()
![]() |
(3) |
nj=1 is the product over all n half-sibs;
2xk=1 is the sum over all possible sire's gametes k; P(k|i) is the probability of gamete k given Mendelian laws, phase i, and recombination rates between adjacent markers,
1 to
x;
xm=1 is the product over all m markers within the synteny group; AFMm is the population frequency of the obliged maternal marker allele of marker m, given the paternal gamete k. All marker phases are a priori considered to be equally likely; i.e., linkage equilibrium is assumed to be reached between all markers. The marker phase maximizing the likelihood of the pedigree data is considered the true one and is selected for further analysis.
As pointed out by ![]()
![]() |
(4) |
While
[1 - 2·P[gi,A(s)|gi,L,gi,R]]2
or the expected value of [1 - 2·P[gi,A(s)|gi,L,gi,R]]2 over all possible genotypes is computed easily for experimental crosses, its calculation is more cumbersome in outbred designs as it will depend on marker allele frequencies and genotype of the founder sire. The value of
[1 - 2·P[gi,A(s)|gi,L,gi,R]]2
is therefore calculated for each half-sib pedigree by simulating all possible offspring and calculating a frequency weighted mean of [1 - 2·P[gi,A (s)|gi,L,gi,R]]2.
Across family analysis:
In practice, the available pedigree material is composed most often not of one half-sib pedigree but of a series of such half-sibships, such as in the granddaughter design (![]()
Rather than analyze the pedigrees separately, however, and reduce power by multiple testing, the individual ZW(s) scores were squared and summed over all k families yielding a
2 statistic with k degrees of freedom:
![]() |
(5) |
Interval mapping by regression:
The rank-sum-based approach (hereafter referred to as method RS) was compared with interval mapping by using regression (hereafter referred to as method MR for multipoint regression; ![]()
Significance thresholds:
For both the RS and MR methods, chromosome-wise significance thresholds were determined from the distribution of the test statistic over 10,000 permutations (simulated data set) or 100,000 permutations (real data set) of the phenotypes (or ranks) as suggested by ![]()
![]()
Simulated data set:
To test the efficacy of the proposed method, we simulated the segregation of a QTL in a granddaughter design. The pedigree material was composed of two paternal half-sib families of 100 sons, four families of 50 sons, and eight families of 25 sons, quite accurately reflecting a real data set. The 14 respective sires were considered to be unrelated.
A QTL was positioned in the center of the fourth interval of a map comprising seven markers spaced 15 recombination units apart. Markers were assumed to be polyallic markers with frequencies randomly assigned from a uniform distribution and rescaled to sum to unity, yielding a heterozygosity of
The QTL was assumed to be biallelic with frequencies p = 0.25 (Q) and q = 0.75 (q), respectively. Founder-sires therefore had an a priori probability 2pq = 0.375 to be heterozygous Qq for the QTL. Following Falconer's notation (FALCONER and MACKAY 1996) and assuming additively acting alleles, the average phenotypic values of the QQ, Qq, and qq genotypic classes were set at +a, d = 0, and -a, respectively. Assuming Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, this yields an average effect of an allele substitution,
= a, and a variance attributable to the segregation of the QTL:
The value of a was determined such that
h2 was set at 9.4% for all simulations, corresponding to an a value of 0.5
P. Five scenarios were considered to model the residual variance,
2R: (1) homoscedastic, normal residual variance, (2) heteroscedastic, normal residual variance, (3) homoscedastic, skewed, or asymetric residual variance, (4) homoscedastic, positive kurtosis or more peaked around the center than the density of the normal curve, and (5) homoscedastic, negative kurtosis or flatter around the center than the density of the normal curve.
Homoscedastic normal residual variance:
Individual phenotypic values were generated as the mean of the genotypic class to which the individual belongs (QQ = a, Qq = 0, or qq = -a) plus a value drawn from a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1; i.e.,
2R was set at one.
Heteroscedastic normal residual variance:
Individual phenotypic values were generated as the mean of the genotypic class to which the individual belongs (QQ = a, Qq = 0, or qq = -a) plus a value drawn from normal distributions with mean 0 and variances of
2R(QQ) = 1,
2R(Qq) = r , and
2R(qq) = s , such that
Homoscedastic, skewed residual variance:
Skewness was simulated by assuming a residual effect distributed as a chi-squared distribution with n degrees of freedom, with variance
2R = 2n and mean n. Individual phenotypic values were generated as the mean of the genotypic class to which the individual belongs (QQ = a - n, Qq = 0 - n, or qq = -a - n) plus a value drawn from a chi-squared distribution with n degrees of freedom, obtained by summing n squared values drawn from a standard normal.
Homoscedastic, positive kurtosis:
Excess of kurtosis was simulated by assuming that the residual effect was distributed as a Student's t-distribution with n degrees of freedom, with variance
2R =
and mean 0. Individual phenotypic values were generated as the mean of the genotypic class to which the individual belongs (QQ = a, Qq = 0, or qq = -a) plus a value drawn from a t-distribution with n degrees of freedom, i.e.,
Homoscedastic, negative kurtosis:
Negative kurtosis was simulated by assuming that the residual effect was distributed as a hemicircular distribution with mean 0 and variance
2R =
, where r is the radius of the hemicircle. Individual phenotypic values were generated as the mean of the genotypic class to which the individual belongs (QQ = a, Qq = 0, or qq = -a) plus a value drawn from this hemicircular distribution. This was done by determining the value of t such that
Figure 1 illustrates the expected phenotypic distributions of offspring from heterozygous founder-sires, Qq, for the five examined models. Offspring are sorted in two genotypic classes depending on the QTL allele transmitted by the sire (Q or q). Each class therefore comprises two subpopulations: QQ (25%) and Qq (75%) for the Q class and Qq (25%) and qq (75%) for the q class.
|
At least 200 datasets (ranging from 200 to 866) were simulated under each of the five models of residual variation and analyzed with the RS and MR methods. Permutations were used to estimate the significance levels reached for each of these analyses (![]()
) was used to measure the corresponding power (1 - ß) of the RS and MR methods (Table 1). Within each model, we compared the relative merits of the RS vs. MR methods by applying the Wilcoxon matched pairs test on all resulting pairs of P values (![]()
![]()
|
Real data set:
The real data set was a Holstein-Friesian granddaughter design comprising 1158 sons distributed over 29 paternal half-sib families, partially described in ![]()
All animals were genotyped for a battery of 15 previously described (![]()
![]()
|
Marker maps were built by using the CRIMAP program (![]()
![]()
Information content along the marker map (![]()
QTL mapping was performed for five milk production traits: milk yield (kg), protein yield (kg), fat yield (kg), protein percentage, and fat percentage. The phenotypes used for QTL mapping were deviations of individual daughter yield deviations from the corresponding average of the parental predicted transmitting abilities (![]()
Marker allele frequencies, required for map construction, measuring of information content, and QTL mapping, were estimated from the dam population, separately for each pedigree, as
p1 and p2 correspond to the frequencies of two alleles from the sire, while p3 is the frequency of all other alleles pooled. nxy corresponds to the number of sons in the pedigree with genotype xy, and n equals the total number of sons in the pedigree.
| RESULTS |
|---|
Simulated data:
Using the approach described in MATERIALS AND METHODS, we simulated GDDs segregating for a QTL explaining a fixed 9.4% of the phenotypic variance (corresponding to a = 0.5
P) but with five alternative residual components: homoscedastic normal, heteroscedastic normal, homoscedastic skewed, homoscedastic positive kurtosis, and homoscedastic negative kurtosis. The generated datasets were all analyzed by using both RS and MR methods. Table 1 reports, for each of the five scenarios, the average P values and the associated power at
-value of 0.05, obtained by permutation as described in MATERIALS AND METHODS.
The relative merit of the RS and MR methods was evaluated by using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test as described in MATERIALS AND METHODS. As expected, multiple regression is superior to the rank-sum approach under the basic model of homoscedastic normal residual variance (P = 0.000014). The loss of power when using the rank-based method is estimated at 8% at
-value of 0.05. The MR method proved also significantly superior to the RS method in the negative kurtosis model (model 5; P = 0.000001); the loss of power with the RS method was estimated at 14% at
-value of 0.05. For the three remaining scenarios, however, the RS approach outperformed MR, the gain in power ranging from 8 to 20% at
-value of 0.05 (Table 1).
The effect of the model on the power to detect the QTL was evaluated by using the Mann-Whitney U test (see MATERIALS AND METHODS), by using model 1 as reference. Comparisons were performed separately for the RS and MR approach. Interestingly, MR appears to be quite insensitive to the nonnormality of the residual variation, as the distribution of P values under the alternative models is never significantly different from those obtained under the basic model. This is likely due to the fact that significance levels are deduced from phenotype permutations rather than from the theoretical distribution of the test statistic. Using RS, on the contrary, significant increases in detection power are observed for models 2, 3, and 4 (respectively 9, 12, and 23% at
-value of 0.05; Table 1), while the distribution of P values does not differ significantly between models 1 and 5.
Estimates of the precision in the estimation of QTL positions were also compared. Table 1 shows the standard deviation of the most likely QTL position for all simulations yielding a signal exceeding the 5% chromosome-wise significant threshold. Comparing the difference between real and estimated position by using the Mann-Whitney U test, we found no evidence for a significant effect either of the statistical method or of the model for the underlying residual variance. In essence, precision was as poor in all circumstances, standard deviations of the estimated position being 20 to 25 cM. While the actual position of the QTL was at 62 cM counting from the first marker, the estimates ranged from 0 to 118 cM, i.e., the entire chromosome length. A total of 95% of the estimates were within 43 cM (=1.9
) from the actual position.
Real data:
Table 2 and Figure 2 show the most likely marker map as obtained from our genotypes. The map covers 125 cM (Kosambi) with average interval of 9 cM. The most likely order was in agreement with KAPPES et al. (1996). The same figure also compares information content when (1) exploiting marker allele frequency estimates to extract information from noninformative marker genotypes, and (2) when ignoring this information, i.e., when considering all microsatellite alleles to be equally frequent in the population. It can be seen that more than 80% of the maximal information is extracted for the central part of the chromosome; however, the information content drops at both extremities of the chromosome. Moreover, the figure shows that information content is improved only marginally by considering marker allele frequencies. This is especially true in the central, denser part of the marker map.
|
Figure 3A and Figure 3B summarize the location score profiles obtained for the five different milk production traits by using both RS and MR approaches. Generally speaking, both methods clearly yield very similar curves for all traits along the entire chromosome length. For protein percentage, the location scores maximize at the same chromosome position (48 cM) using both approaches. The associated experiment-wise significance levels are P = 0.03 for RS and P = 0.01 for MR, therefore slightly superior for the latter.
|
These results are in agreement with the report of a QTL affecting milk production on the centromeric half of chromosome 6, first identified by ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
In this article, we have adapted a nonparametric QTL mapping method based on sum of ranks that was described previously for experimental crosses (![]()
![]()
We confirm that this approach (the RS method) can be applied conveniently to normally distributed traits with minimal loss of power when compared to parametric methods. In the simulated example, we noticed a loss of power of 8% at
-value of 5% when compared to the MR method. When simulating nonnormal or heteroscedastic residuals, however, the RS method outperformed the MR method in three out of four scenarios (models 24: heteroscedastic normal, homoscedastic skewed, and homoscedastic positively kurtosed). Interestingly, this was shown not to be due to a loss of power of the MR approach, which proved to be relatively robust in the scenarios that we simulated, but rather to a gain of power when applying the RS method. Our interpretation of this finding is that in the three scenarios where RS proved superior to MS, the phenotypic distribution is characterized by "outlyers" when compared to the normal distribution (see Figure 1). These outlyers contribute excessively to the residual variation, while the bulk of the observations actually are more centered around the mean (and therefore less variable) when compared to the normal distribution. When using ranks rather than the actual phenotypes, the contribution of the outlyers to the residual variation is tempered, therefore increasing the ratio QTL variance/residual variance and concommitantly increasing the power to detect the QTL.
A disadvantage of the rank-based methods is the fact that these do not provide convenient estimates of QTL effects. These methods therefore are suitable for the detection of QTLs but have to be complemented with alternative methods, such as least-squares or maximum likelihood techniques when quantifying the QTL effects.
Recently, a number of QTL mapping methods that account for multiple linked or unlinked QTL have been proposed. These include two QTL models (e.g., ![]()
![]()
![]()
Assuming paternal half-sib pedigrees, the proposed method allows for missing genotypes in the "dams." In such cases, estimates of marker allele frequencies can be used to improve inference about the identity of the transmitted paternal chromosome. However, it is shown that when performing multipoint analyses with dense marker maps, this contributes only a marginal improvement of the information content. The benefit of including marker allele frequency is therefore doubtful. Indeed, errors in the estimation of the marker allele frequencies may even cause an increase in type I errors or a loss of power if accounting for inaccuracies in the frequency estimates (![]()
As expected, the precision in the estimation of the QTL position using both proposed parametric and nonparametric approaches is mediocre. This illustrates the need to develop alternative strategies for fine-mapping QTL in outbred populations.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We acknowledge the financial support of Holland Genetics, Livestock Improvement Corporation, the Vlaamse Rundvee Vereniging, and the Ministère des Classes Moyennes et de l'Agriculture, Belgium. Continuous support from NANKE DEN DAAS, BRIAN WICKHAM, DENIS VOLCKAERT, and PASCAL LEROY is greatly appreciated. We thank JOHAN VAN ARENDONK, RICHARD SPELMAN, HENK BOVENHUIS, MARCO BINK, DAVE JOHNSON, and DORIAN GARRICK for fruitful discussions.
Manuscript received November 6, 1997; Accepted for publication March 30, 1998.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
CHARLIER, C., F. FARNIR, P. BERZI, P. VANMANSHOVEN, and B. BROUWERS et al., 1996 IBD mapping of recessive traits in livestock: application to map the bovine syndactyly locus to chromosome 15. Genome Res. 6:580-589
CHURCHILL, G. A. and R. W. DOERGE, 1995 Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963-971[Abstract].
COWAN, C. W., M. R. DENTINE, R. L. AX, and L. A. SCHULER, 1990 Structural variation around prolactin gene linked to quantitative traits in elite Holstein sire family. Theor. Appl. Genet. 79:577-582.
FALCONER, D. S., and T. F. C. MACKAY, 1996 Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th Edition. Longman, New York.
GEORGES, M., D. NIELSEN, M. MACKINNON, A. MISHRA, and R. OKIMOTO et al., 1995 Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling milk production by exploiting progeny testing. Genetics 139:907-920[Abstract].
GOMEZ-RAYA, L., D. I.VÅGE, I. OLSAKER, H. KLUNGLAND, G. KLEMETSDAL et al., 1996 Mapping QTL affecting traits of economical importance in Norwegian cattle. Proceedings of 47th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Lillehammer, Norway, August 2529, 1996, p. 39.
HALEY, C. S. and S. A. KNOTT, 1992 A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers. Heredity 69:315-324[Medline].
HOLLANDER, M., and D. A. WOLFE, 1973 Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
JANSEN, R. C., 1993 Interval mapping of multiple quantitative trait loci. Genetics 135:205-211[Abstract].
KAPPES, S. M., J. W. KEELE, R. T. STONE, R. A. MCGRAW, and T. S. SONSTEGARD et al., 1997 A second-generation linkage map of the bovine genome. Genome Res. 7:235-249
KNOTT, S. A., J. M. ELSEN, and C. S. HALEY, 1996 Methods for multiple-marker mapping of quantitative trait loci in half-sib populations. Theor. Appl. Genet. 93:71-80.
KRUGLYAK, L. and E. S. LANDER, 1995a A nonparametric approach for mapping quantitative trait loci. Genetics 139:1421-1428[Abstract].
KRUGLYAK, L. and E. S. LANDER, 1995b Complete multipoint sib-pair analysis of qualitative and quantitative traits. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 57:439-454[Medline].
KÜHN, CH., R. WEIKARD, T. GOLDAMMER, S. GRUPE, and I. OLSAKER et al., 1996 Isolation and application of chromosome 6 specific microsattelite markers for detection of QTL for milk-production traits in cattle. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 113:355-362.
LANDER, E. S. and P. GREEN, 1987 Construction of multilocus genetic linkage maps in humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84:2363-2367
SPELMAN, R. L., W. COPPIETERS, L. KARIM, J. A. M. VAN ARENDONK, and H. BOVENHUIS, 1996 Quantitative trait loci analysis for five milk production traits on chromosome six in the dutch Holstein-Friesian population. Genetics 144:1799-1808[Abstract].
VAN RADEN, P. M. and G. R. WIGGANS, 1991 Derivation, calculation, and use of National Animal Model Information. J. Dairy Sci. 74:2737-2746[Abstract].
VILKKI, H. J., D.-J. DE KONING, K. ELO, R. VELMALA, and A. MAKI-TANILA, 1997 Multiple marker mapping of quantitative trait loci of Finnish dairy cattle by regression. J. Dairy Sci. 80:198-204
VOS, P., R. HOGERS, M. BLEEKER, M. REIJANS, and T. VAN DE LEE et al., 1995 AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 23:4407-4414
WEBER, J. L. and P. E. MAY, 1989 Abundant class of human DNA polymorphisms which can be typed using the polymerase chain reaction. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 44:388-396[Medline].
WELLER, J. I., Y. KASHI, and M. SOLLER, 1990 Power of daughter and granddaughter designs for determining linkage between marker loci and quantitatve trait loci in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 73:2525-2537[Abstract].
WILLIAMS, J. G., A. R. KUBELIK, K. J. LIVAK, J. A. RAFALSKI, and S. V. TINGEY, 1990 DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res. 18:6531-6535
ZENG, Z-B., 1993 Theoretical basis of separation of multiple linked gene effects on mapping quantitative trait loci. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:10972-10976
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Yang, X. Wang, J. Li, and H. Deng Bayesian robust analysis for genetic architecture of quantitative traits Bioinformatics, April 15, 2009; 25(8): 1033 - 1039. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A.-M. Tyriseva, K. Elo, A. Kuusipuro, V. Vilva, I. Janonen, H. Karjalainen, T. Ikonen, and M. Ojala Chromosomal Regions Underlying Noncoagulation of Milk in Finnish Ayrshire Cows Genetics, October 1, 2008; 180(2): 1211 - 1220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Gutierrez-Gil, M. F. El-Zarei, L. Alvarez, Y. Bayon, L. F. de la Fuente, F. S. Primitivo, and J. J. Arranz Quantitative Trait Loci Underlying Udder Morphology Traits in Dairy Sheep J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2008; 91(9): 3672 - 3681. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Gutierrez-Gil, M. F. El-Zarei, Y. Bayon, L. Alvarez, L. F. de la Fuente, F. S. Primitivo, and J. J. Arranz Short Communication: Detection of Quantitative Trait Loci Influencing Somatic Cell Score in Spanish Churra Sheep J Dairy Sci, January 1, 2007; 90(1): 422 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Alvarez, B. Gutierrez-Gil, F. S. Primitivo, L. F. de la Fuente, and J. J. Arranz Influence of Prion Protein Genotypes on Milk Production Traits in Spanish Churra Sheep J Dairy Sci, May 1, 2006; 89(5): 1784 - 1791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Takeda, M. Takami, T. Oguni, T. Tsuji, K. Yoneda, H. Sato, N. Ihara, T. Itoh, S. R. Kata, Y. Mishina, et al. Positional cloning of the gene LIMBIN responsible for bovine chondrodysplastic dwarfism PNAS, August 6, 2002; 99(16): 10549 - 10554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Farnir, B. Grisart, W. Coppieters, J. Riquet, P. Berzi, N. Cambisano, L. Karim, M. Mni, S. Moisio, P. Simon, et al. Simultaneous Mining of Linkage and Linkage Disequilibrium to Fine Map Quantitative Trait Loci in Outbred Half-Sib Pedigrees: Revisiting the Location of a Quantitative Trait Locus With Major Effect on Milk Production on Bovine Chromosome 14 Genetics, May 1, 2002; 161(1): 275 - 287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Riquet, W. Coppieters, N. Cambisano, J.-J. Arranz, P. Berzi, S. K. Davis, B. Grisart, F. Farnir, L. Karim, M. Mni, et al. Fine-mapping of quantitative trait loci by identity by descent in outbred populations: Application to milk production in dairy cattle PNAS, August 3, 1999; 96(16): 9252 - 9257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Email this article to a friend
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Coppieters, W.
- Articles by Georges, M.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Coppieters, W.
- Articles by Georges, M.








), fat (
), and protein (
) yield, as well as fat (
) and protein (
) percentage, using the RS (a) and MR methods (b). The y-axis corresponds to the log10 of the inverse of the corresponding chromosome-wise P value as determined by permutation. Horizontal bars on the graphs correspond to 15, 10, 5, and 1% experiment-wise thresholds, obtained by applying a Bonferroni correction to the chromosome-wise significance levels.


