Email: support@essaywriterpros.com
Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

“The nature and identification of quantitative trait loci:a community’s view”.

Lander and Botstein developed interval mapping, which overcomes the three disadvantages of analysis of variance at marker loci.[18] Interval mapping is currently the most popular approach for QTL mapping in experimental crosses. The method makes use of a genetic map of the typed markers, and, like analysis of variance, assumes the presence of a single QTL. In interval mapping, each locus is considered one at a time and the logarithm of the odds ratio (LOD score) is calculated for the model that the given locus is a true QTL. The odds ratio is related to the Pearson correlation coefficient between the phenotype and the marker genotype for each individual in the experimental cross.[19]

The term ‘interval mapping’ is used for estimating the position of a QTL within two markers (often indicated as ‘marker-bracket’). Interval mapping is originally based on the maximum likelihood but there are also very good approximations possible with simple regression.

The principle for QTL mapping is: 1) The Likelihood can be calculated for a given set of parameters (particularly QTL effect and QTL position) given the observed data on phenotypes and marker genotypes. 2) The estimates for the parameters are those where the likelihood are highest. 3) A significance threshold can be established by permutation testing.[20]

Conventional methods for the detection of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) are based on a comparison of single QTL models with a model assuming no QTL. For instance in the “interval mapping” method [21] the likelihood for a single putative QTL is assessed at each location on the genome. However, QTLs located elsewhere on the genome can have an interfering effect. As a consequence, the power of detection may be compromised, and the estimates of locations and effects of QTLs may be biased (Lander and Botstein 1989; Knapp 1991). Even nonexisting so-called “ghost” QTLs may appear (Haley and Knott 1992; Martinez and Curnow 1992). Therefore, multiple QTLs could be mapped more efficiently and more accurately by using multiple QTL models.[22] One popular approach to handle QTL mapping where multiple QTL contribute to a trait is to iteratively scan the genome and add known QTL to the regression model as QTLs are identified. This method, termed composite interval mapping determine both the location and effects size of QTL more accurately than single-QTL approaches, especially in small mapping populations where the effect of correlation between genotypes in the mapping population may be problematic.