- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Supplementary Table 1
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- 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 Dilda, C. L.
- Articles by Mackay, T. F. C.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Dilda, C. L.
- Articles by Mackay, T. F. C.
The Genetic Architecture of Drosophila Sensory Bristle Number
Christy L. Dildaa and Trudy F. C. Mackayaa Department of Genetics and W. M. Keck Center for Behavioral Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7614
Corresponding author: Trudy F. C. Mackay, Campus Box 7614, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7614., trudy_mackay{at}ncsu.edu (E-mail)
Communicating editor: J. B. WALSH
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
We have mapped quantitative trait loci (QTL) for Drosophila mechanosensory bristle number in six recombinant isogenic line (RIL) mapping populations, each of which was derived from an isogenic chromosome extracted from a line selected for high or low, sternopleural or abdominal bristle number and an isogenic wild-type chromosome. All RILs were evaluated as male and female F1 progeny of crosses to both the selected and the wild-type parental chromosomes at three developmental temperatures (18°, 25°, and 28°). QTL for bristle number were mapped separately for each chromosome, trait, and environment by linkage to roo transposable element marker loci, using composite interval mapping. A total of 53 QTL were detected, of which 33 affected sternopleural bristle number, 31 affected abdominal bristle number, and 11 affected both traits. The effects of most QTL were conditional on sex (27%), temperature (14%), or both sex and temperature (30%). Epistatic interactions between QTL were also common. While many QTL mapped to the same location as candidate bristle development loci, several QTL regions did not encompass obvious candidate genes. These features are germane to evolutionary models for the maintenance of genetic variation for quantitative traits, but complicate efforts to understand the molecular genetic basis of variation for complex traits.
SUSCEPTIBILITY to common human diseases and response to pharmacological therapy; traits of agronomic importance; morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits; and adaptive traits are all genetically complex. Phenotypic variation for these quantitative traits is attributable to the segregation of multiple quantitative trait loci (QTL) with individually small effects, whose expression is conditional on the environment. A comprehensive understanding of the "genetic architecture" of any quantitative trait would include the list of all genes affecting variation in the trait; estimates of their additive, dominance, epistatic, and pleiotropic effects and environmental sensitivities; and the molecular definition of QTL alleles.
Despite the importance of determining the genetic and environmental factors affecting variation in quantitative traits to medicine, agriculture, and an understanding of the evolutionary process, no quantitative trait is currently understood at this level of detail. The greatest chance of success is likely to come from the study of complex traits for which genes have been identified that are necessary for the production of the trait phenotype and in a model organism susceptible to genetic manipulation with genetic and genomic resources. One such system is the number of mechanosensory bristles in Drosophila melanogaster (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The first step toward determining the genetic basis of variation for quantitative traits is a genome scan to localize and estimate effects of QTL by linkage to polymorphic molecular markers. Such studies have been facilitated in the past decade by the development of new statistical methods (![]()
![]()
![]()
To further increase the precision of mapping, ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
Mapping populations:
Six populations of RILs were derived from isogenic X chromosomes selected for high (H) and low (L) sternopleural bristle number (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The individuals scored for this experiment were the offspring of crosses of females from each of the RILs within a population to Sam (S) males and to males with the appropriate H or L selected parental chromosome (P) in the Sam background. The double backcross design is essentially a North Carolina III design for RILs (![]()
Marker genotypes:
Cytogenetic insertion sites of roo transposable element were determined for each of the RILs by in situ hybridization of biotin-labeled roo DNA to polytene salivary chromosomes of third instar larvae, exactly as described previously (![]()
![]()
|
Bristle number phenotypes:
Two replicate vials of progeny from crosses between each RIL and both parental lines were reared at 18°, 25°, and 28°. Abdominal (total number of bristles on the fifth and sixth abdominal sternite of males and females, respectively) and sternopleural [total number of bristles on the left (L) and the right (R) sternopleural plates] bristle numbers were scored on 10 males and 10 females in both replicate vials for all RILs, for a total of 40 individuals scored per line per cross per temperature environment.
Phenotypic analyses:
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to partition the variance in bristle traits among the RILs for each population into sources attributable to line (L, random), sex (S, fixed), temperature (T, fixed), and cross (C, fixedSam or selected parent) according to the model

where µ is the overall mean, R refers to replicate vials, E is the within-vial error variance, and parentheses represent the nesting of an effect. Reduced models were also run within temperatures and sexes, pooled over crosses. Tests of significance of F-ratios and estimates of variance components were computed using SAS procedures GLM and VARCOMP (SAS INSTITUTE 1988).
QTL mapping:
Composite interval mapping (![]()
![]()
![]()
2 with 2 d.f. under the null hypothesis and was evaluated every centimorgan.
The significance level for each analysis to infer the presence of a QTL was determined by permutation. Empirical distributions of LR test statistics under the null hypothesis of no association between test intervals and trait values were obtained for each analysis by randomly permuting the trait data 1000 times and calculating the maximum LR statistic across all intervals for each permutation. LR statistics calculated from the original data that were exceeded by the permutation maximum LR statistics <50 times are significant at
= 0.05 under the null hypothesis (![]()
![]()
QTL effects:
Estimates of additive effects [a = (PP - SS)/2] and dominance deviations [d = SP - (SS + PP)/2] of each bristle number QTL within each sex, temperature, trait, and population are provided by the QTL mapping analyses (![]()
To determine whether there were significant QTL x temperature and QTL x sex interactions, within a trait and population, the genotypes of the closest marker to each significant QTL peak, as determined by composite interval mapping, were used as categorical variables in ANOVA. A total of i separate analyses were carried out for each significant marker in turn, using the model

where µ is the overall mean, Mi are the significant markers, S refers to sex, T refers to temperature, E is the error variance, and Mx refers to the marker for which interactions are evaluated with all effects being fixed. Significance levels were determined by Bonferroni correction for multiple testing on the basis of the number of marker interaction tests (0.05/i) within each cross.
The significance of pairwise epistatic interactions between nonadjacent bristle number QTL detected by composite interval mapping analyses was evaluated by ANOVA on line means. A more sophisticated method (multiple-interval mapping) has been developed to identify epistasis among QTL (![]()

was fitted. It included µ as the overall mean; the main effects of sex (S), temperature (T), and all bristle number QTL (Mi) identified by the QTL mapping analyses within a bristle trait and population; the two-way interaction term (Mi x Mj) for the two focal marker genotypes; all possible interactions among the two focal markers, sex, and temperature; and the error variance (E). The three- and four-way interactions were used to investigate sex- and environment-specific epistatic interactions between pairs of QTL. Significance levels were determined by Bonferroni correction for multiple testing on the basis of the number of interaction tests within each cross.
The effects of significant two-locus interactions were estimated from the least-squares means of the four marker locus classes as [(
11 +
22) - (
12 +
21)], where the first subscript is 1 if the marker has a homozygous genotype for either parental strain and 2 if the marker has a heterozygous genotype, and the second subscript takes on the same values for the other marker in the interaction. With no epistasis between markers, this term should approach zero. Standard errors of the interaction effects were estimated as [MSI/(n11 + n22 + n12 + n21 - 4)]1/2, where MSI is the interaction mean square for the ANOVA model and n is the number of lines in each of the four marker classes as described above.
| RESULTS |
|---|
Quantitative genetic analysis:
ANOVA of bristle number within each of the six RIL mapping populations showed highly significant variation among lines for abdominal and sternopleural bristle number in all populations, sexes, and environments (data not shown). The results of full ANOVA models partitioning the variance in bristle number within each mapping population into sources attributable to temperature, cross, sex, and line and all of the interactions of these main effects are given in Table 2 and Table 3. All populations also exhibited significant genotype x environment (VLT), genotype x sex (VLS), and/or genotype x cross (VLC) interactions. Significant VLT and VLS terms mean the effects of bristle number genes vary according to temperature and sex, respectively (![]()
30% of the total genetic variance in these populations was due to interactions (dominance, epistasis, sex, temperature). However, this ratio ranged from a low of
15% in C3, HST to a high of
34% in C3, LAB for sternopleural bristle number and from
22% in C1, LST to
57% in C3, LST for abdominal bristle number. Thus, the quantitative genetic analyses indicate that one should expect QTL mapping to reveal bristle number QTL with additive, dominance, and epistatic effects that can be conditional on sex and rearing environment.
|
|
|
|
QTL mapping:
QTL affecting sternopleural and abdominal bristle number in each sex and temperature were mapped by linkage to molecular markers in each population using a composite interval mapping method (![]()
![]()
95% confidence intervals for the location of each QTL (![]()
|
|
|
We mapped 144 QTL for sternopleural and abdominal bristle number, pooled over all six mapping populations, three temperature environments, and two sexes (supplementary table at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/). Considering the additive and dominance effects of each QTL, the interaction of the markers with sex and temperature from analysis of variance, epistatic interactions between markers from analysis of variance, and the effects of the markers in the correlated trait led to the elimination of two QTL due to similarities in effects to neighboring QTL, giving a total of 142 QTL.
Additive and dominance effects:
Additive effects and dominance deviations of each QTL were estimated while fitting marker cofactors for the appropriate model in each analysis (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
|
Observed exponential distributions of QTL effects could reflect an underlying exponential distribution of effects of the actual genes corresponding to the QTL. However, an underlying infinitesimal distribution of gene effects could also lead to an apparent exponential distribution of QTL effects, since overestimation of QTL effects could be an artifact of small sample size (![]()
![]()
Under the infinitesimal model, the magnitude of QTL effects would be directly proportional to the physical size of the interval containing the QTL. This hypothesis was tested by plotting the absolute values of QTL effects (scaled by the additive genetic standard deviation) against the genome size in kilobases. Cytological positions of roo element markers spanning the
95% confidence interval (2-LOD support interval) were noted, and the DNA content between the markers was calculated using the table of ![]()
|
The distribution of degrees of dominance of QTL is given in Fig 8. These span the range from strictly additive through complete dominance (recessivity), with most QTL partially dominant (recessive). There are a few cases where the value of the heterozygote lies outside the range of the homozygotes, which are most parsimoniously attributable to sampling error in estimating effects.
|
The signs of the QTL effects were mostly in the expected direction for the selected trait, with some exceptions. In the C1, HST population, the Sam alleles had higher sternopleural bristle numbers for the two QTL mapped at 25° (the temperature at which selection was carried out). Possibly the divergence in sternopleural bristle number between the "high" and "low" selected X chromosomes was attributable to response for reduced bristle number only. There were also QTL with effects opposite to the direction of selection at 25°, in the C3, HST population, closely linked to QTL for high sternopleural bristle number relative to Sam on the selected chromosome.
QTL interactions with temperature and sex:
Many of the QTL significantly exceeded the permutation threshold in only one sex and environment, while others were significant in males and females or in more than one temperature. However, one cannot infer if there are significant QTL x sex or QTL x temperature interactions simply because a QTL was not significant in both sexes (all temperatures), since small differences in effect could lead to detection in one sex (environment) but not the other. Conversely, the presence of significant QTL across sexes (environments) does not mean there was no interaction, since effects could be of different magnitude or direction.
ANOVA was used to formally test for QTL x sex and QTL x temperature interactions, separately for each population and bristle trait. The ANOVA models included all markers closest to the peak LR for the significant QTL, plus the marker x sex, marker x temperature, and marker x sex x temperature interaction terms for the focal marker. Since a separate ANOVA was run for each focal marker in turn, the significance threshold for each trait was adjusted downward by a Bonferroni correction for the number of markers. Multiple-trait composite interval mapping (![]()
Summed over all populations, there were 42 QTL affecting sternopleural bristle number and 38 QTL affecting abdominal bristle number. These QTL exhibited a far greater number of interactions with sex (54/80 = 67.5%) and temperature (47/80 = 58.8%) than expected by chance, given a nominal 5% significance threshold. However, none of the three-way marker x sex x temperature interactions were even nominally significant. After Bonferroni corrections for multiple tests, 8/42 (19.0%) QTL for sternopleural bristle number exhibited significant QTL x sex interactions, and 14/42 (33.3%) exhibited significant QTL x temperature interactions (Table 4, Fig 9A). The QTL x sex interaction term was highly significant for all the abdominal bristle number QTL. A total of 21 (55.3%) of these QTL also exhibited significant interactions with temperature (Table 4, Fig 9B).
|
|
The nature of the interactions was assessed by comparing the stability of the genotypes for each QTL x sex and QTL x temperature interaction. ![]()
Since bristle number decreases with increasing temperatures, the slope of the regression of bristle number on temperature was computed for each of the three genotypes for the 35 QTL exhibiting significant interactions with temperature. Again, the heterozygote was rarely (5/35) the most stable genotype. While these data show GILLESPIE and TURELLI's (1989) hypothesis does not pertain in general to QTL affecting bristle number, there appear to be some QTL to which this mechanism could apply.
Each of the significant QTL x sex and QTL x temperature interactions was classified as exhibiting either conditional neutrality (genotypes having the same mean bristle number in one sex/environment but are different in the other sex/environment) or antagonistic pleiotropy (genotypes having opposite effects in different sexes/environments, leading to a crossing of reaction norms). Examples of conditional neutrality and antagonistic pleiotropy are given in Fig 9. For sternopleural bristle number, all of the QTL x sex interactions and 11 (78.6%) of the QTL x temperature interactions exhibited conditional neutrality. For abdominal bristle number, 22 (57.9%) of the QTL x sex interactions and 20 (95.2%) of the QTL x temperature interactions exhibited conditional neutrality.
In summary, interactions with sex and environment were common for QTL affecting both sternopleural and abdominal bristle number, but were more frequent for the latter trait. Interactions with environment generally showed conditional neutrality for both bristle traits. Interactions with sex showed conditional neutrality for sternopleural bristle number, but both conditional neutrality and antagonistic pleiotropy were observed for abdominal bristle number.
QTL x QTL interactions:
Detection of epistatic (QTL x QTL) interactions between genotypes at two loci was conducted using ANOVA models that fitted the effects of all significant QTL, a single pairwise interaction between QTL, and interactions of pairs of QTL with temperature and sex. The number of epistatic interactions that were significant at P = 0.05 greatly exceeded that expected by chance: 133/334 (39.8%) for sternopleural bristle number and 68/228 (29.8%) for abdominal bristle number. After Bonferroni correction, 30 significant interactions (9.0%) were affecting sternopleural bristle number and 25 significant interactions (11.0%) were affecting abdominal bristle number (Table 5, Fig 10). The QTL x QTL x sex term was significant only once for sternopleural bristle number and not at all for abdominal bristle number. None of the QTL x QTL x temperature terms and four-way QTL x QTL x sex x temperature interactions was significant for either bristle trait.
|
|
The nature of the marker x marker interactions was investigated by determining whether the epistasis was "diminishing" or "synergistic" (![]()
![]()
Total number of QTL:
To estimate the minimum number of QTL affecting variation in sensory bristle number, we inferred which QTL mapped to the same location in different populations by comparing the marker maps and QTL locations. QTL were considered to be the same across populations if the peak LR coincided at the same marker and if the 2-LOD support intervals for the QTL overlapped. QTL that mapped to close but different cytological locations in two populations were considered to be the same if there were no markers between them and if they affected the same bristle trait (or at least one trait if a QTL was found for both bristle traits). According to these criteria, a minimum of 53 QTL affecting sensory bristle number were detected, 11 on the X chromosome and 42 on chromosome 3.
Three of the third-chromosome QTL that mapped to the same location were considered to be different because they affected different bristle traits. The QTL at 61B in the C3, HST population affected sternopleural bristle number and the one at 61A in the C3, HAB population affected abdominal bristle number; the QTL at 89A affected abdominal bristle number in the C3, LST population and sternopleural bristle number in the C3, LAB population; and the QTL at 91B affected sternopleural bristle number in the C3, HST population and abdominal bristle number in the C3, LAB and C3, HAB populations. However, ![]()
![]()
The number of QTL detected is a minimum because (1) QTL were not mapped on the second chromosome; (2) further recombination with a higher density of markers can separate linked QTL; (3) increasing the number of individuals scored per RIL enables detection of QTL with smaller effects; and (4) QTL that segregate only between the parental chromosomes used to establish the mapping populations can be mapped. Scaling the estimate of 53 QTL on the X and third chromosomes, which together represent 60% of the genome, to the whole genome thus yields a minimum of 88 bristle number QTL. The effects of points 3 and 4 above are minimized in this study, since sample sizes were large, and the selected chromosomes were likely to represent most alleles at intermediate frequency in nature, since they were derived from large selection lines in turn derived from a large base population (![]()
![]()
The locations and effects of the 53 QTL for sensory bristle number are listed in Table 6. The QTL effects show whether the QTL had a main effect only or interacted with sex and/or temperature.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
In this study, QTL for mechanosensory bristle number have been mapped in six RIL mapping populations, each of which was derived from an isogenic chromosome extracted from a line selected for high or low, sternopleural or abdominal bristle number and an isogenic wild-type chromosome. All RILs were evaluated as male and female F1 progeny of crosses to both the selected and the wild-type parental chromosomes at three developmental temperatures (18°, 25°, 28°). Previously, bristle number QTL were mapped in the homozygous RIL, reared under standard (25°) laboratory conditions (![]()
Consistency:
A total of 70 QTL were detected at 25° in this study and that of ![]()
![]()
2 criterion, but not the more stringent permutation threshold, in the study of ![]()
Perhaps a fairer evaluation of the extent to which the same QTL were detected in both experiments is to ask what fraction of the total number of QTL found by ![]()
![]()
The agreement between the two experiments is good, but there are clearly discrepancies. There are multiple potential, and nonmutually exclusive, explanations for these differences:
- 1. The mapping populations were not identical. Several of the RILs were homozygous lethal and could not be scored by
NUZHDIN et al. 1999 . However, these lines did produce viable F1 progeny when crossed to the parental chromosomes and were included in this study. Thus, the sample size of this study was slightly increased, and the recombination maps were not identical.
- Although the permutation test controls the overall Type I error, it does not eliminate false positives. Therefore, one expects some of the QTL in each study to be false positives.
- Epistasis between QTL is not explicitly considered in the composite interval mapping algorithm. Extensive epistatic interactions between bristle number QTL were observed in this study; therefore, estimates of QTL locations and effects from the composite interval analyses, ignoring these interactions, are biased. Further, the genetic backgrounds of the two experiments differed, such that only additive x additive epistasis occurred in the populations of
NUZHDIN et al. 1999 , whereas additive x additive, additive x dominant, dominant x additive, and dominant x dominant interactions potentially contributed to the epistatic interactions of this study.
- QTL mapping is an exercise in model selection. QTL locations and estimates of effects can vary according to the marker cofactors that are fitted to control for the genetic background, even for the same data set (
PASYUKOVA et al. 2000 ). Part of the observed difference could thus be due to differences between the models that were fitted in each case.
These issues highlight the importance of confirming QTL detected in such mapping experiments by independent methods.
Response to selection:
Comparisons across pairs of high and low selected populations revealed that QTL contributing to the response to selection for low bristle number are usually not the same as those contributing to selection response for high bristle number (Table 6). A total of 7 QTL affecting sternopleural bristle number were mapped in the C1, LST and C1, HST populations; of these, only 1 QTL (at 2A2B) was common to the two populations. Of the 25 QTL for sternopleural bristle number mapped in the C3, LST and C3, HST populations, 3 QTL were common to both (at 69F70C, 75B75C, and 87A). Similarly, 2 abdominal bristle number QTL (at 77B77E and 91B) out of a total of 18 were detected in the C3, LST and C3, HST populations. Thus, only 12% of QTL were associated with both high and low selection response.
Two possible scenarios could explain these results. If the distribution of allelic effects is symmetrical, then these data are consistent with low frequencies of QTL alleles with high and low effects on bristle number, such that the probability of sampling both the high allele in the high selection line and the low allele in the low line is low. Alternatively, it is possible that the distribution of allelic effects is asymmetrical at the majority of loci contributing to selection response, such that there exists a common allele with either a high or a low effect on bristle number relative to other wild-type alleles segregating at the locus. The latter hypothesis is consistent with experiments showing that response to selection from single-pair bottleneck populations was little diminished relative to response from large base populations, indicating that most QTL alleles are at intermediate frequency in nature (![]()
![]()
![]()
Correlated responses:
Of the 53 QTL, 13 (24.5%, Table 6) affected both direct and correlated responses to selection. In these populations, therefore, approximately three-quarters of the QTL contributing to correlated selection response did so by hitchhiking along with linked selected loci. The remaining one-quarter of the QTL for which direct and correlated responses mapped to the same region could be attributable to pleiotropy. However, pleiotropy cannot be distinguished from linkage as causing a genetic correlation until a single molecular polymorphism is shown to affect both traits. As noted above, two separate molecular polymorphisms in Delta (![]()
![]()
![]()
Genetic architecture of bristle number:
Early experiments to map QTL using the same selected chromosomes as this study concluded that a few QTL with moderately large effects might account for the majority of the divergence among the selected chromosomes (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Bristle number QTL also exhibit strong sex-specific effects (genotype-by-sex interaction, GSI). This phenomenon is particularly evident for abdominal bristle number, where all QTL had sex-specific effects: 22 of the 38 QTL (57.9%) were detected in only one of the two sexes, and the remainder had opposite effects in males and females. Only 8 of the sternopleural bristle number QTL exhibited GSI; all were detected in only one sex. ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The picture painted by decades of biometrical analyses is of sensory bristle numbers as archetypical quantitative traits, with predominantly additive and little nonadditive (dominance and epistatic) genetic variance (![]()
![]()
In particular, epistatic interactions between bristle number QTL are large and pervasive. Further, the magnitude of epistasis was likely underestimated because a conservative Bonferroni correction was used to declare significant interactions and because interactions were tested only between markers closest to QTL that were themselves significant. The single-marker analysis always underestimates effects of both QTL and interactions between QTL by an amount that is a function of the distance of the QTL from the marker (![]()
![]()
![]()
Maintenance of quantitative genetic variation:
The number of Drosophila sensory bristles is thought to be under strong stabilizing selection for an intermediate optimum in nature, because mean bristle numbers are relatively stable among natural populations. Efforts to deduce the relationship of bristle numbers to fitness in the laboratory have, however, reached contradictory conclusions, with experiments supporting strong (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
If bristle numbers are indeed under strong stabilizing selection, it is a mystery why so much genetic variation for these traits persists in the face of selection, which eliminates variation. Of course, some fraction of genetic variance must be due to this mutation-selection balance. However, estimates of the mutational variance for bristle number are too low by an order of magnitude to account for observed levels of segregating variation (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Variation for traits under stabilizing selection can also be maintained by epistasis. Stabilizing selection favors reduced phenotypic variation for the selected traits, through environmental and genetic canalization, where the former refers to insensitivity of the phenotype to environmental perturbations and the latter to insensitivity to genetic perturbations (mutations; ![]()
![]()
![]()
Future prospects:
QTL mapping is only the first step toward understanding the genetic basis of any complex trait. Ultimately, one wants to know what genetic loci correspond to the QTL (quantitative trait genes, QTG) and, further, what molecular polymorphisms at these genes cause the quantitative variation in phenotypes. Initial QTL mapping experiments utilizing the same selected chromosomes examined in this study noted that the QTL regions typically encompassed candidate genes affecting peripheral nervous system development (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The intervals to which bristle number QTL were mapped in this study also typically contained candidate genes with known effects on bristle number development or with bristle number mutant phenotypes (Table 6). However, several QTL regions do not contain obvious candidate genes. Deficiency complementation mapping to narrow the QTL intervals to regions containing small numbers of loci (![]()
![]()
Since epistatic interactions confound the interpretation of complementation tests to deficiencies and mutations, candidate QTG so identified must be confirmed by independent methods, such as linkage disequilibrium mapping to associate molecular polymorphisms in the candidate genes with phenotypic variation in bristle number (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Bristles as model quantitative traits:
Lessons learned about the genetic architecture of Drosophila bristle number extend not only to other Drosophila quantitative traits, but also to quantitative traits in other species, including common and complex human diseases. QTL for bristle number detected in initial and low-resolution mapping studies tend to fractionate into multiple QTL on further investigation. The same phenomenon has been observed when QTL for Drosophila life span were fine mapped by deficiency complementation (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
It is not likely that moderately large numbers of QTL, some of which have sex-, environment-, and genotype-specific effects, are a peculiar feature of Drosophila complex traits. However, with the exception of sex-specific effects, detecting environment- and genotype-dependent QTL effects is difficult in organisms that are not amenable to sophisticated genetic manipulation (e.g., humans). The practical consequence of lack of control over genotype and environment in studies of human diseases is that the marginal effects of QTL, averaged over all genotypes and environments, may be quite small, necessitating rather large sample sizes to detect individual QTL alleles. Lessons learned from Drosophila bristles can and should be used to guide experimental design in other systems.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank F. Lawrence, S. Heinsohn, and B. Hackett for help with the flies. Thanks to J. Leips, C. Basten, and Z-B. Zeng for discussion of various aspects of this experiment. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant GM 45146 to T.F.C.M. This is a publication of the W. M. Keck Center for Behavioral Biology.
Manuscript received March 8, 2002; Accepted for publication September 3, 2002.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
ANHOLT, R. R. H., R. F. LYMAN, and T. F. C. MACKAY, 1996 Effects of single P element insertions on olfactory behavior in Drosophila melanogaster.. Genetics 143:293-301.[Abstract]
BARTON, N. H., 1990 Pleiotropic models of quantitative variation. Genetics 124:773-782.









