2007
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-007-0663-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inclusive composite interval mapping (ICIM) for digenic epistasis of quantitative traits in biparental populations

Abstract: It has long been recognized that epistasis or interactions between non-allelic genes plays an important role in the genetic control and evolution of quantitative traits. However, the detection of epistasis and estimation of epistatic effects are difficult due to the complexity of epistatic patterns, insufficient sample size of mapping populations and lack of efficient statistical methods. Under the assumption of additivity of QTL effects on the phenotype of a trait in interest, the additive effect of a QTL can… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
201
0
5

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 307 publications
(207 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
201
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…This avoidance would result in a larger residual variance, further a lower power of QTL detection and poorer precision (little larger in standard deviation) in estimated QTL effects and positions [41]. The two dimensional scanning methods, which consider both main and epistatic effects of pair QTL simultaneously with genetic background controlling, such as the mixed model approach of Wang et al [23] and inclusive composite interval mapping (ICIM) of Li et al [42], are alternative methods. However, the genetic design matrix should be reconstructed (Table 1) and the genetic parameter should be correctly explained [14][15][16]24,30,41].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This avoidance would result in a larger residual variance, further a lower power of QTL detection and poorer precision (little larger in standard deviation) in estimated QTL effects and positions [41]. The two dimensional scanning methods, which consider both main and epistatic effects of pair QTL simultaneously with genetic background controlling, such as the mixed model approach of Wang et al [23] and inclusive composite interval mapping (ICIM) of Li et al [42], are alternative methods. However, the genetic design matrix should be reconstructed (Table 1) and the genetic parameter should be correctly explained [14][15][16]24,30,41].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…QTLs exhibiting significant effects (LOD [ 3) in more than one experiment (in map positions close to the same or directly neighbouring markers) were selected for interpretation. The ICIM method (Li et al 2008) was used to find first-order QTL-QTL interaction effects. As the method is restricted to the analysis of homozygous lines, heterozygotes were treated as missing genotypes for codominant markers and as dominant homozygotes otherwise.…”
Section: Genotyping and Linkage Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Full advantage was taken of the availability of the two populations. Besides additive QTL effects, found by the application of Windows QTL Cartographer 2.0 (2007) software, both types of epistasis were analysed: the QTL by genetic background interaction by a comparison of additive QTL effects found, and the first-order QTL-QTL interaction by the recently developed inclusive composite interval mapping (ICIM) method (Li et al 2008). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the present study, three mapping methods which can analyze epistatic effect were employed to detect QTLs for GL, LWR, CGR, CD, GT, AC and GC in head rice. The three methods were composite interval mapping in QTLMapper 2.0 software (Wang et al, 1999) based on mixed linear model (MCIM), inclusive composite interval mapping in QTL IciMapping 3.0 software (Li et al, 2008) based on stepwise regression linear model (ICIM) and multiple interval mapping with regression forward selection in Windows QTL Cartographer 2.5 based on multiple regression analysis (MIMR). The QTL mapping results obtained by the three genetic statistical models were compared and the highly reliable QTLs were determined.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%