Cited by 492Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetics and Plant Breeding

QTL analysis in plants; where are we now?

Open access
Kearsey, M J, Farquhar, A G L·1998·Heredity

Abstract

We have briefly reviewed the methods currently available for QTL analysis in segregating populations and summarized some of the conclusions arising from such analyses in plant populations. We show that the analytical methods locate QTL with poor precision (10-30 cM), unless the heritability of an individual QTL is high. Also the estimates of the QTL effects, particularly the dominance effects tend to be inflated because only large estimates are significant. Estimates of numbers of QTL per trait are generally low (< 8) for individual trials. This may suggest that there are few QTL but probably reflects the power of the methods. There is no large correlation between the numbers of QTL found and the amount of the variation explained. Of those cases where dominance is measurable, dominance ratios are often > 1, but seldom significantly greater. These latter cases need further analysis. Many QTL map close to candidate genes, and there is growing evidence from synteny studies of corresponding chromosome regions carrying similar QTL in different species. However, unreliability of QTL location may suggest false candidates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00500.x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kearsey, M. J., & Farquhar, A. G. L.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Kearsey, M J
Venue
Heredity
Published
1998-02
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
137-142
ISSN
  • 0018-067X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2540
OpenAlex
W1966205550
Cited by
492
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 20
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetics and Plant Breeding
Keywords
QTL mapping, quantitative trait loci, segregating populations, QTL effect estimation, dominance effects, candidate genes, synteny, plant genetics
MeSH terms
Chromosome Mapping, Plants, Genes, Plant, Quantitative Trait, Heritable

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review