TABLE 5

Estimated epistatic effects between QTL for the maize data

Effecta
QTL pairLODaa + ddad + daEmbedded Image (%)bEmbedded Image (%)b
I, II1.97−7.200.530.74
I, V1.12−5.810.320.45
I, IX2.669.570.901.27
I, XII1.37−6.540.380.53
II, III1.367.650.520.74
II, IX0.885.490.280.39
III, IV1.50−7.210.470.67
III, VI1.13−5.380.280.40
III, VIII0.514.740.200.28
III, XIII1.21−5.720.310.43
IV, XII1.287.090.440.62
V, VIII0.91−4.920.210.30
V, X1.698.140.590.84
VIII, XIII1.226.050.350.49
V, VIII0.84−6.590.380.54
VI, VII1.22−6.850.440.61
VI, VIII1.888.330.700.99
VIII, XIII1.056.120.360.50
IX, X2.2512.911.612.27
IX, XI2.65−16.492.463.47
IX, XII0.804.970.240.33
X, XIII0.925.630.300.43
  • a Epistatic effects in bushels/acre.

  • b Embedded Image and Embedded Image are the fraction of the phenotypic variance in backcrosses to Mo17 (Embedded Image) and B73 (Embedded Image), respectively, accounted for by each putative QTL epistatic interaction.