| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Genetics, Vol. 177, 1859-1870, November 2007, Copyright © 2007
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.077321
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


,1
* School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200240, People's Republic of China,
College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agriculture University, Harbin 150030, People's Republic of China,
Bioinformatics Research Center, Departments of Statistics and Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 and
Department of Statistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
1 Corresponding author: Department of Statistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
E-mail: rwu{at}stat.ufl.edu
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
More recently, a series of statistical models, called functional mapping, have been developed to map dynamic QTL for a quantitative trait (MA et al. 2002; WU et al. 2003, 2004a,b,c; reviewed in WU and LIN 2006). Functional mapping integrates mathematical aspects of a biological process into a QTL mapping framework constructed by mixture models. Its fundamental idea originates from the rationale that any biological development follows a universal law that can be described by a mathematical function. For example, growth, i.e., the increase of size, volume, or mass as a function of time, can be described by a logistic curve that is derived from fundamental biophysical and physiological principles (WEST et al. 2001). Aside from its biological relevance, functional mapping is statistically sensible by capitalizing on the information about the autocorrelation of errors among different time points in development.
Although the merits of functional mapping have been recognized in mapping development-related QTL for several examples (ZHAO et al. 2004b,c), its construction within the context of simple interval mapping prevents it from the separation of multiple linked QTL that jointly affect developmental patterns. Composite interval mapping, advocated independently by JANSEN and STAM (1994) and ZENG (1994), overcomes the low-resolution limitation of interval mapping. Composite interval mapping integrates the interval test of a putative QTL within a given marker region and partial regression analysis of the markers outside the test interval as cofactors, and it has theoretically proved advantageous for the detection and separation of linked QTL on the same chromosome (ZENG 1993). Thus far, the integration of functional mapping and composite interval mapping to make use of their respective advantages has not been fully explored.
In composite interval mapping, the genetic effects of the markers that do not bracket the putative QTL are fit individually by a partial regression analysis. Such an analysis allows for the separation of linked QTL that are located at a similar region and, thus, greatly increases the precision of QTL mapping (ZENG 1993, 1994; JANSEN and STAM 1994). However, the simple use of a mathematical function to model the time-dependent marker effects is not possible because this will need to solve nonlinear equations that define developmental trajectories for all the genotypes at each marker. GAO and YANG (2006) attempted to use a nonparametric approach based on Legendre polynomials to simultaneously model QTL effects and marker effects on a dynamic trait within the context of composite interval mapping. However, this approach does not take advantage of functional mapping to gain access to and visualization of biological relevance through the deployment of mathematical functions.
In this article, we purport to develop a semiparametric approach for composite functional mapping, in which nonparametric smoothing with the Legendre function models the marker effects, while the effect of the tested QTL is modeled by a parametric function. Such a combination of parametric modeling of the QTL effects and nonparametric modeling of the marker effects preserves the biological relevance of functional mapping and, meanwhile, improves the power of QTL detection and the flexibility of the model. We implement a stationary covariance model (MA et al. 2002) to characterize the structure of the covariance matrix among growth measured at different time points. The statistical behavior of this semiparametric model is investigated through simulations studies. The utility of the model is validated by an example from a rice molecular genetic project.
| METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
According to the principle of composite interval mapping (ZENG 1993, 1994), the phenotypic value of the trait for individual i measured at time t, yi(t), affected by the putative QTL, is expressed by a linear model,
![]() | (1) |
(t), and β(t) are the population mean and the additive and dominant effects for the QTL at time t, respectively;
and
are the indicator variables for individual i that specify the QTL genotypes related to the additive and dominant effects, respectively, which are
![]() | (2) |
2(t)). The covariance between the residual errors at different time points t1 and t2 is denoted as
(t1, t2). All the variances and covariances form a (T x T) covariance matrix
.
Modeling time-dependent genetic effects:
Functional mapping uses a biologically meaningful mathematical function to approximate the genotypic means for an assumed QTL at different time points. If a growth trait is considered, the mathematical function used can be a logistic curve, expressed as
![]() | (3) |
(t)) and dominant effects (β(t)) of the QTL shown in Equation 1 can be estimated by
![]() | (4) |
In this study, Legendre polynomials are implemented to model the genetic effects of individual markers. Let Ls(t) = (L0(
), L1(
),
, Ls(
)) be a Legendre polynomial of order s, with a general form expressed as
![]() |
with min(t) and max(t) being the first and last time points, respectively.
If the genetic effects of a QTL bracketed by a pair of markers are fit by a parametric model and the genetic effects of the remaining markers (k = 1, · · · , m – 2) are fit by Legendre polynomials of order s, the time-dependent means at different QTL genotypes for individual i are approximated by
![]() | (5) |
ak = (ak0, ak1, · · · , aks), and dk = (dk0, dk1, · · · , dks) are the base population mean and the base additive and dominant effects for marker k as a cofactor, respectively.
Combining the QTL and marker effects in composite functional mapping, time-dependent genotypic means for different QTL genotypes are modeled by
, {ak,
) if a logistic curve is considered. Any other curve parameters can be included in
, depending on the nature of a mathematical function.
Modeling the covariance matrix:
A number of approaches have been proposed to model the covariance structure of serial measurements. A commonly used approach for structuring the covariance is the first-order autoregressive [AR(1)] model (VERBEKE and MOLENBERGHS 2000). One advantage of using the AR(1) model is that it provides a general expression for calculating the determinant and inverse of the matrix for any number of time points measured. But it assumes variance stationarity and correlation stationarity; i.e., the residual variance at different time points is the same, expressed as
2, and the correlation between two different time points t1 and t2 decreases exponentially in
with time lag, expressed as corr(
. If the AR(1) model is used, the parameters that model the structure of
are arrayed by
. In practice, the AR(1) model may be limited because its underlying two assumptions are violated.
Two approaches can be used to overcome the heteroscedastic problem of the residual variance for a practical data set. First, the time-dependent residual variance is directly modeled by a parametric function of time (e.g., PLETCHER and GEYER 1999). The disadvantage of this approach is that it needs to implement additional parameters for characterizing the time-dependent change of the variance. Second, CARROLL and RUPPERT's (1984) transform-both-sides (TBS) model can be embedded into the functional finite mixture model (WU et al. 2004b). This approach does not need any more parameters. As indicated, by empirical analyses with real examples and computer simulations, the TBS-based model can increase the precision of parameter estimation and computational efficiency. Especially, the TBS model preserves original biological means of the curve parameters and, thus, increases its biological relevance, although statistical analyses are based on transformed data.
Likelihood and computational algorithm:
The likelihood function of the observed data including the phenotypic trait, yi = (yi(1),
· · · , yi(T)), and markers, M, is expressed, within the context of a mixture model, as
![]() | (6) |
= (
j|i) and
. In statistics, the parameters
j|i determine the proportions of different mixture normals and actually reflect the segregation of the QTL in the population, which can be inferred in terms of the recombination fractions among the markers and QTL. For an F2 mapping population, n progeny can be classified into nine different groups on the basis of known genotypes of a pair of markers. Thus, in each of such marker–genotype groups, the mixture proportion or frequency of a joint QTL genotype is progeny specific and can be expressed as the conditional probability of QTL genotype j for progeny i given its marker genotype (LYNCH and WALSH 1998; WU et al. 2007), symbolized by
j|i. The parameters
determine the QTL genotype-specific distribution density
that is assumed to be multivariate normal, expressed as
![]() | (7) |
for individual i are modeled by
and
, respectively. The mean vector and covariance matrix are considered to be individual specific, because different individuals may receive different patterns of measurement, e.g., different time points and unevenly spaced time intervals.
The EM algorithm is implemented to obtain the maximum-likelihood estimates (MLEs) of unknown parameters,
, for the likelihood expressed by Equation 6. In the E step, the posterior probabilities of each QTL genotype for individual i are calculated by
![]() |
j|i to estimate the parameters associated with the QTL and marker effects and the covariance matrix. It is possible to derive the closed forms for the base population means and base additive and dominant effects for h = m – 2 markers as cofactors, which are expressed as
![]() |
, and β = (β(1),
, β(T)). It is difficult to derive the closed forms for the parameters that are used to model the time-dependent QTL effects and covariance matrix. These parameters can be estimated by implementing the simplex or Newton–Raphson algorithm in the estimation process with the EM algorithm (ZHAO et al. 2004a; H. Y. LI et al. 2006). Modeled by the AR(1) (MA et al. 2002), the closed forms for estimating the determinant and inverse of the covariance matrix can be derived, which will increase the computational efficiency of functional mapping.
Hypothesis tests:
One of the most significant advantages of functional mapping is that it can ask and address biologically meaningful questions at the interplay between gene actions and trait dynamics by formulating a series of hypothesis tests. WU et al. (2004a); described several general hypothesis tests for different purposes. Although all these general tests can be directly used in this study, we here propose the test about the existence of a QTL that affects the process and shape of a dynamic trait.
Testing whether a specific QTL is associated with a dynamic trait is a first step toward the understanding of the genetic architecture of the trait. The genetic control over the entire dynamic process of a trait can be tested by formulating the following hypotheses:
![]() | (8) |
![]() | (9) |
is the marker information excluding the two tested markers. The critical value of the likelihood-ratio (LR) test statistic can be determined by estimating its behavior under the null hypothesis for a whole genome. An empirical approach based on permutation tests by destroying the relationships between the phenotypic values and tested marker-interval genotypes (DOERGE and CHURCHILL 1996; ZOU et al. 2004; JIN et al. 2007) is usually used to determine the critical threshold of the LR for interval mapping. But this approach cannot be directly used for composite interval mapping in which additional markers (excluding the two tested markers) serve as cofactors to be associated with the phenotypic values. ZENG (1994) proposed a simulation approach to examine the distribution of the LR values under the null hypothesis. The phenotypic values simulated under the null hypothesis should reflect the effects of the markers as cofactors. This can be done by assuming that the time-dependent phenotypic values follow a multivariate normal distribution with mean vector
![]() |
| MONTE CARLO SIMULATION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
![]() |
r(t)) and dominant effects (βr(t)) at the rth QTL are specified by Equation 6. Assume that the F2 individuals are measured for a dynamic trait at eight even-spaced time points. The time-dependent phenotypic values of the trait were simulated to follow a multivariate normal distribution with the four-QTL genotypic mean vector and the residual covariance matrix fit by the AR(1) model. The values of the variance
2 and correlation
were empirically determined, assuring a modest heritability for the dynamic trait at the middle of the measurement period. The simulated phenotypic data for individual F2 progeny may also be logistic curves because of the underlying logistic mean curve.
The assumed phenotypic and marker data were analyzed by composite functional mapping. To obtain the best fit of the data, the optimal number of markers involved in the partial regression analysis of composite functional mapping and the optimal order of the Legendre polynomial to model the marker effects should be determined. We used the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (SCHWARZ 1978) as the model selection criterion of the optimal marker number and polynomial order. The BIC is defined as
![]() |
and
are the MLEs of parameters under the Legendre polynomial of order r, dimension(
) represents the number of independent parameters under order r, and n is the total number of observations at a particular time point. The optimal model is one that displays the minimum BIC value. An important issue for composite interval mapping is to determine the optimal number and combination of markers as cofactors on the basis of model selection criteria. We empirically chose different numbers of markers, zero, three, four, five, and six, that bracket the marker interval containing the tested QTL, as the cofactors of partial regression analysis, and then evaluated each of these choices with the BIC values calculated for different orders of the Legendre polynomial (Table 1). At a given number of cofactors, order 4 gives the minimum BIC value, whereas for a given order, five cofactors best fit the data. Overall, the Legendre function of order 4 and five markers as cofactors are incorporated into composite functional mapping for this simulated data set. For the test of the presence of a QTL, we simulated 500 additional samples under the null model to obtain the empirical critical values of the LR test statistic. Under the alternative model, the simulation was replicated 100 times to calculate empirical power by counting the number of runs in which the test statistics were greater than the critical values. Calculating the averaged LRs at every scanning point over the segment of chromosome, we depicted the statistic profiles for the five models with the number of cofactors, zero, three, four, five, and six.
|
|
|
|
| EXAMPLE |
|---|
|
|
|---|
![]() |
![]() | (10) |
|
|
|
|
25 cM, can be detected individually by composite functional mapping. | DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In this article, we have integrated the principles of functional mapping and composite interval mapping within a unifying framework for QTL mapping, aimed at increasing the resolution of multiple QTL on the same region of a chromosome. The new model allows us to approximate the ontogenetic changes of the genetic effects triggered by a QTL and the markers outside the test interval. Because many biological processes, such as growth, follow a particular pattern of development (WEST et al. 2001), the ontogenetic control of a QTL can be mathematically described and, thereby, tested by estimating the parameters that define a biological process (MA et al. 2002). If a parametric approach is implemented to model the time-dependent marker effects, this would lead to tremendous computational burden. We instead fit marker effects by capitalizing on the linear property of a Legendre polynomial. In fact, the Legendre polynomial is flexible in the modeling of various forms of curves and has been used to model genetic and environmental effects in quantitative genetic studies (KIRKPATRICK and HECKMAN 1989; SCHAEFFER 2004; MEYER 2005a,b) and QTL mapping (GAO and YANG 2006; YANG et al. 2006). One important aspect of functional mapping is to model the structure of the covariance matrix by a stationary or nonstationary approach. Because of its computational simplicity, AR(1) is advantageous for structuring the covariance although it needs the variance and covariance stationarity assumptions. The TBS-based model can relax the assumption of variance stationarity (WU et al. 2004b), but it has not resolved the covariance stationarity issue when embedded into the AR(1) model. A so-called structured antedependence (SAD) model, advocated by ZIMMERMAN and NúÑEZ-ANTÓN (2001), can be used to simultaneously model the time-dependent changes of and variance and correlation in the analysis of longitudinal traits. The SAD model is found to display many favorable properties (ZIMMERMAN and NúÑEZ-ANTÓN 2001). More recently, ZHAO et al. (2005) applied this model to functional mapping and further explored its robustness in modeling the covariance structure through a comparison with the AR(1) model.
The advantage of our composite functional mapping lies in the combination of biologically sensible functions that enhance biological relevance of QTL detection and the flexibility of a nonparametric approach that is aimed at increasing the computational efficiency. The model is used to analyze a published data set on the growth of leaf age in rice (ZHOU et al. 2001). As compared to traditional functional mapping, the new model has tremendous power to detect and separate linked QTL located on the similar regions of a chromosome. The model has been found to be robust in that it provides reasonable estimates of QTL effects and positions in a wide range of parameter space, as demonstrated by simulation studies.
It is possible that our model can be modified in several areas. First, a mathematical function is used to model the ontogenetic change of genetic effects of a QTL, considering that the trait studied undergoes a certain developmental pattern. There may also be many traits that do not follow a mathematical function. YANG et al. (2006) used the Legendre polynomial to model the time-dependent QTL effects. A similar idea was employed in CUI et al. (2006) and LIN and WU (2006), who incorporated the Legendre-based transformation to model some particular stage of growth or one aspect of a joint longitudinal and time-to-event analysis. Second, composite functional mapping can be extended to explore the effects of interaction between different QTL (KAO and ZENG 2002) and QTL and environments (ZHAO et al. 2004b,c) on variation in a dynamic trait by expanding Equation 4 to interaction terms with quantitative genetic theory (LYNCH and WALSH 1998). Beyond composite interval mapping, Zeng and colleagues (KAO and ZENG 1997; KAO et al. 1999) extended a so-called multiple-interval mapping approach to a genomewide search for the distribution of QTL throughout the genome. The integration of functional mapping and multiple-interval mapping will help to improve the statistical behavior of functional mapping. All the modified models will certainly prove their value in elucidating the genetic architecture of dynamic traits and will probably be the beginning of detecting the driving forces behind dynamic genetics and their relationship to the organism as a whole. The computer code for the method proposed can be requested from the corresponding author.
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
|
|---|
CARROLL, R. J., and D. RUPPERT, 1984 Power-transformations when fitting theoretical models to data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79: 321–328.[CrossRef]
CUI, Y. H., J. ZHU and R. L. WU, 2006 Functional mapping for genetic control of programmed cell death. Physiol. Genomics 25: 458–469.
DOERGE, R. W., and G. A. CHURCHILL, 1996 Permutation tests for multiple loci affecting a quantitative character. Genetics 142: 285–294.[Abstract]
FRARY, A., T. C. NESBITT, A. FRARY, S. GRANDILLO, E. VAN DER KNAAP et al., 2000 fw2.2: a quantitative trait locus key to the evolution of tomato fruit size. Science 289: 85–88.
GAO, H. J., and R. Q. YANG, 2006 Composite interval mapping of QTL for dynamic traits. Chin. Sci. Bull. 51: 1857–1862.[CrossRef]
KAO, C.-H., and Z.-B. ZENG, 1997 General formulas for obtaining the MLEs and the asymptotic variance-covariance matrix in mapping quantitative trait loci when using the EM algorithm. Biometrics 53: 653–665.[CrossRef][Medline]
KAO, C.-H., and Z.-B. ZENG, 2002 Modeling epistasis of quantitative trait loci using Cockerham's model. Genetics 160: 1243–1261.
KAO, C.-H., Z.-B. ZENG and R. D. TEASDALE, 1999 Multiple interval mapping for quantitative trait loci. Genetics 152: 1203–1216.
KIRKPATRICK, M., and N. HECKMAN, 1989 A quantitative genetic model for growth, shape, reaction norms, and other infinite-dimensional characters. J. Math. Biol. 27: 429–450.[CrossRef][Medline]
JANSEN, R. C., and P. STAM, 1994 High resolution mapping of quantitative traits into multiple loci via interval mapping. Genetics 136: 1447–1455.[Abstract]
JIN, C., J. P. FINE and B. S. YANDELL, 2007 A unified semiparametric framework for QTL analyses, with application to spike phenotypes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 102: 56–67.[CrossRef]
LANDER, E. S., and D. BOTSTEIN, 1989 Mapping Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics 121: 185–199.
LI, C. B., A. L. ZHOU and T. SANG, 2006 Rice domestication by reducing shattering. Science 311: 1936–1939.
LI, H. Y., B.-R. KIM and R. L. WU, 2006 Identification of quantitative trait nucleotides that regulate cancer growth: a simulation approach. J. Theor. Biol. 242: 426–439.[CrossRef][Medline]
LIN, M., and R. L. WU, 2006 A joint model for nonparametric functional mapping of longitudinal trajectories and time-to-events. BMC Bioinformatics 7: 138.[CrossRef][Medline]
LYNCH, M., and B. WALSH, 1998 Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
MA, C.-X., G. CASELLA and R. L. WU, 2002 Functional mapping of quantitative trait loci underlying the character process: a theoretical framework. Genetics 161: 1751–1762.
MACKAY, T. F. C., 2001 Quantitative trait loci in Drosophila. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2: 11–20.[Medline]
MEYER, K., 2005a Estimates of genetic covariance functions for growth of Angus cattle. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 122: 73–85.[CrossRef][Medline]
MEYER, K., 2005b Random regression analyses using B-splines to model growth of Australian Angus cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 37: 473–500.[CrossRef][Medline]
PLETCHER, S. D., and C. J. GEYER, 1999 The genetic analysis of age-dependent traits: modeling the character process. Genetics 153: 825–835.
SCHAEFFER, L. R., 2004 Application of random regression models in animal breeding. Livestock Prod. Sci. 86: 35–45.[CrossRef]
SCHWARZ, G., 1978 Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6: 461–464.
SEN, S., and G. A. CHURCHILL, 2001 A statistical framework for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 159: 371–387.
VERBEKE, G., and G. MOLENBERGHS, 2000 Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. Springer-Verlag, New York.
WANG, H., Y. M. ZHANG, X. M. LI, G. MASINDE, S. MOHAN et al., 2005 Bayesian shrinkage estimation of quantitative trait loci parameters. Genetics 170: 465–480.
WENG, Q., W. WU, W. LI, H. LIU, D. TANG et al., 2000 Construction of an RFLP linkage map of rice using DNA probes from two different sources. J. Fujian Agric. Univ. 29: 129–133.
WEISS, L. A., L. PAN, M. ABNEY and C. OBER, 2006 The sex-specific genetic architecture of quantitative traits in humans. Nat. Genet. 38: 218–222.[CrossRef][Medline]
WEST, G. B., J. H. BROWN and B. J. ENQUIST, 2001 A general model for ontogenetic growth. Nature 413: 628–631.[CrossRef]
WU, R. L., and M. LIN, 2006 Functional mapping—how to map and study the genetic architecture of dynamic complex traits. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7: 229–237.[CrossRef][Medline]
WU, R. L., C.-X. MA, W. ZHAO and G. CASELLA, 2003 Functional mapping of quantitative trait loci underlying growth rates: a parametric model. Physiol. Genomics 14: 241–249.
WU, R. L., C.-X. MA, M. LIN and G. CASELLA, 2004a A general framework for analyzing the genetic architecture of developmental characteristics. Genetics 166: 1541–1551.
WU, R. L., C.-X. MA, M. LIN, Z. H. WANG and G. CASELLA, 2004b Functional mapping of growth QTL using a transform-both-sides logistic model. Biometrics 60: 729–738.[CrossRef][Medline]
WU, R. L., Z. H. WANG, W. ZHAO and J. M. CHEVERUD, 2004c A mechanistic model for genetic machinery of ontogenetic growth. Genetics 168: 2383–2394.
WU, R. L., C.-X. MA and G. CASELLA, 2007 Statistical Genetics of Quantitative Traits: Linkage, Maps, and QTL. Springer-Verlag, New York.
YANG, R. Q., Q. TIAN and S. Z. XU, 2006 Mapping quantitative trait loci for longitudinal traits in line crosses. Genetics 173: 2339–2356.
ZENG, Z.-B., 1993 Theoretical basis for separation of multiple linked gene effects in mapping quantitative trait loci. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90: 10972–10976.
ZENG, Z.-B., 1994 Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics 136: 1457–1468.[Abstract]
ZENG, Z.-B., J. LIU, L. F. STAM, C.-H. KAO, J. M. MERCER et al., 2000 Genetic architecture of a morphological shape difference between two Drosophila species. Genetics 154: 299–310.
ZHAO, W., R. L. WU, C.-X. MA and G. CASELLA, 2004a A fast algorithm for functional mapping of complex traits. Genetics 167: 2133–2137.
ZHAO, W., C.-X. MA, J. M. CHEVERUD and R. L. WU, 2004b A unifying statistical model for QTL mapping of genotype-sex interaction for developmental trajectories. Physiol. Genomics 19: 218–227.
ZHAO, W., J. ZHU, M. GALLO-MEAGHER and R. L. WU, 2004c A unified statistical model for functional mapping of genotype x environment interactions for ontogenetic development. Genetics 168: 1751–1762.
ZHAO, W., Y. Q. CHEN, G. CASELLA, J. M. CHEVERUD and R. L. WU, 2005 A non-stationary model for functional mapping of longitudinal quantitative traits. Bioinformatics 21: 2469–2477.
ZHOU, Y., W. LI, W. WU, Q. CHEN, D. MAO et al., 2001 Genetic dissection of heading time and its components in rice. Theor. Appl. Genet. 102: 1236–1242.[CrossRef]
ZIMMERMAN, D. L., and V. NúÑEZ-ANTÓN, 2001 Parametric modeling of growth curve data: an overview (with discussion). Test 10: 1–73.[CrossRef]
ZOU, F., J. P. FINE, J. HU and D. Y. LIN, 2004 An efficient resampling method for assessing genome-wide statistical significance in mapping quantitative trait loci. Genetics 168: 2307–2316.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |