TABLE 2

Comparison of results from three QTL studies (Hayes et al. 1993; Schön et al. 1993; Bohn et al. 1996) analyzed with composite interval mapping and cross validation (CV, k = 5

Hayes et al. 1993bSchön et al. 1993c
Parameter estimatedaSamplingYieldPlant heightTunnel lengthPlant heightBohn et al. 1996d: Damage rating
Data setHeritability0.770.960.630.870.64
No.of QTL61110810
Embedded Image 65.390.352.360.584.0
Estimation setNo.of QTL5.19.55.87.56.5
1, 147, 141, 134, 111, 12
Embedded Image 62.089.248.360.788.1
54.7, 66.6e87.0, 90.335.4, 61.556.2, 64.366.9, 102.4
Test setsEmbedded Image CV/E59.398.326.553.741.1
8.6, 112.973.2, 107.621.6, 32.550.4, 57.527.0, 59.2
CV/G33.384.815.542.731.6
22.7, 47.379.4, 86.66.4, 26.536.5, 53.110.6, 54.2
CV/GE26.289.311.641.021.3
-12.1, 81.968.3, 107.93.0, 26.129.4, 48.33.2, 52.3
  • DS, data set; ES, estimation set; TS, test set.

  • a Number of QTL in ES calculated as the mean; pEs and pTS.ES denote the median across all CV runs.

  • b Barley population consisting of 150 doubled haploid lines tested in 16 environments. Cross validation using u = 15 and e = 1 with 240 replicated runs.

  • c Maize population consisting of 300 F2:3 lines tested in two environments. Cross validation using u = 1 and e = 1 with 200 replicated runs.

  • d Maize population consisting of 171 F2:3 lines tested in three environments. Cross validation using u = 2 and e = 1 with 200 replicated runs.

  • e Quartiles of 25 and 75%.