Cited by 1,046Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

High resolution of quantitative traits into multiple loci via interval mapping.

Open access
Jansen, R C, Stam, P·1994·Genetics

Abstract

A very general method is described for multiple linear regression of a quantitative phenotype on genotype [putative quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and markers] in segregating generations obtained from line crosses. The method exploits two features, (a) the use of additional parental and F1 data, which fixes the joint QTL effects and the environmental error, and (b) the use of markers as cofactors, which reduces the genetic background noise. As a result, a significant increase of QTL detection power is achieved in comparison with conventional QTL mapping. The core of the method is the completion of any missing genotypic (QTL and marker) observations, which is embedded in a general and simple expectation maximization (EM) algorithm to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of the model parameters. The method is described in detail for the analysis of an F2 generation. Because of the generality of the approach, it is easily applicable to other generations, such as backcross progenies and recombinant inbred lines. An example is presented in which multiple QTLs for plant height in tomato are mapped in an F2 progeny, using additional data from the parents and their F1 progeny.

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/136.4.1447

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The CIM approach was simultaneously proposed by Jansen and Stam (1994) and Zeng (1994).

    “This is the principle of the CIM approach, simultaneously proposed by Jansen and Stam (1994) and Zeng (1994).”

    From The statistical analysis of multi-environment data: modeling genotype-by-environment interaction and its genetic basis (2013) · cites this paper as Jansen and Stam (1994)

    The paper’s Abstract describes the marker-cofactor interval-mapping approach, so it supports identifying Jansen and Stam’s work with the approach. It says the method follows Jansen (1993b), however, and does not address Zeng (1994) or establish that the two 1994 papers proposed it simultaneously. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The power of QTL detection can be improved by reducing the background noise caused by QTLs outside the region under test.

    “The power of QTL detection can be improved by reducing the background noise caused by QTLs outside the region under test.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. BECKMANN, J. S., and M. SOUR, 1989 Backcross inbred lines for map ping and cloning of loci of interest, pp. 117-122 in Development and Application of Molecular Markers to Problems in Plant Ge- netics, edited by B. BumandT. HELENTJARIS. Brookhaven National Laboratory. GENSTAT 5 COMMI'ITEE, 1987 Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  2. STAM, P., 1991 Some aspects of QTL mapping, in Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of the Eucarpia Section Biometrics in Plant Breed- ing. Brno, July 1991.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jansen, R. C., & Stam, P.
Affiliations
Wageningen University & Research (NL)
ORCID
Stam, P
Venue
Genetics
Published
1994-04-01
Volume
136
Issue
4
Pages
1447-1455
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2168558754
Cited by
1,046
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 50
FWCI
17.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
quantitative trait loci, interval mapping, multiple linear regression, F2 progeny, expectation-maximization algorithm, plant height, tomato, backcross progeny, recombinant inbred lines
MeSH terms
Chromosome Mapping, Genotype, Models, Genetic, Phenotype

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