TABLE 5

Comparative summary of QTL mapping parameters in the Ler/Cvi RIL and NIL populations

TraitPopulationaQTLb (no.)Supportc (cM)Explained varianced (%)Total explained variance (%)EffecteRelative effectf
FTRIL36.616.168.44.71.15
NIL535.5 (3.6)34.083.24.41.03
SLRIL710.111.079.52.11.09
NIL923.3 (5.2)38.766.12.11.11
TLRIL811.110.186.34.51.09
NIL631.4 (3.4)50.887.76.41.09
IBRIL512.18.765.00.51.13
NIL145.9 (2.7)46.366.13.82.71
BBRIL421.39.438.50.41.59
NIL533.1 (5.6)16.126.70.71.30
TBRIL69.79.171.10.61.10
NIL440.5 (5.4)22.244.11.31.11
  • FT, flowering time; SL, length until first silique; TL, total plant length; IB, main inflorescence branch number; BB, basal branch number; TB, total branch number.

  • a Population type.

  • b Number of QTL detected.

  • c Average length of support interval. In parentheses: average length of largest-effect bin.

  • d Average explained variance for each QTL.

  • e Average absolute effect for each QTL. Effects are given in days (flowering time), centimeters (length at first silique and total length), or numbers (elongated axils, basal branch number, and total branch number).

  • f Smallest relative effect significantly detected, expressed as fold difference compared to Ler, calculated as (|μB − μA| + μA)/μA.