Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 899

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits in tomato: comparison across species, generations, and environments.

Open access
Paterson, A H, Damon, S, Hewitt, J D, Zamir, D, Rabinowitch, H D, Lincoln, S E, Lander, E S, Tanksley, S D·1991·Genetics

Abstract

As part of ongoing studies regarding the genetic basis of quantitative variation in phenotype, we have determined the chromosomal locations of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) affecting fruit size, soluble solids concentration, and pH, in a cross between the domestic tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and a closely-related wild species, L. cheesmanii. Using a RFLP map of the tomato genome, we compared the inheritance patterns of polymorphisms in 350 F2 individuals with phenotypes scored in three different ways: (1) from the F2 progeny themselves, grown near Davis, California; (2) from F3 families obtained by selfing each F2 individual, grown near Gilroy, California (F3-CA); and (3) from equivalent F3 families grown near Rehovot, Israel (F3-IS). Maximum likelihood methods were used to estimate the approximate chromosomal locations, phenotypic effects (both additive effects and dominance deviations), and gene action of QTLs underlying phenotypic variation in each of these three environments. A total of 29 putative QTLs were detected in the three environments. These QTLs were distributed over 11 of the 12 chromosomes, accounted for 4.7-42.0% of the phenotypic variance in a trait, and showed different types of gene action. Among these 29 QTLs, 4 were detected in all three environments, 10 in two environments, and 15 in only a single environment. The two California environments were most similar, sharing 11/25 (44%) QTLs, while the Israel environment was quite different, sharing 7/20 (35%) and 5/26 (19%) QTLs with the respective California environments. One major goal of QTL mapping is to predict, with maximum accuracy, which individuals will produce progeny showing particular phenotypes. Traditionally, the phenotype of an individual alone has been used to predict the phenotype of its progeny. Our results suggested that, for a trait with low heritability (soluble solids), the phenotype of F3 progeny could be predicted more accurately from the genotype of the F2 parent at QTLs than from the phenotype of the F2 individual. For a trait with intermediate heritability (fruit pH), QTL genotype and observed phenotype were about equally effective at predicting progeny phenotype. For a trait with high heritability (mass per fruit), knowing the QTL genotype of an individual added little if any predictive value, to simply knowing the phenotype. The QTLs mapped in the L. esculentum X L. cheesmanii F2 appear to be at similar locations to many of those mapped in a previous cross with a different wild tomato (L. chmielewskii).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/genetics/127.1.181

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 899

Metadata

Authors
Paterson, A. H., Damon, S., Hewitt, J. D., Zamir, D., Rabinowitch, H. D., Lincoln, S. E., Lander, E. S., & Tanksley, S. D.
Venue
Genetics
Published
1991-01-01
Volume
127
Issue
1
Pages
181-197
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W1954777732
Cited by
899
References
0
FWCI
22.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits in tomato: comparison across species, generations, and environments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/127.1.181
The paper
Paterson, A. H., Damon, S., Hewitt, J. D., Zamir, D., Rabinowitch, H. D., Lincoln, S. E., Lander, E. S., & Tanksley, S. D. (1991). Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits in tomato: comparison across species, generations, and environments. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/127.1.181

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.