The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL) Mapping Using Different Testers and Independent Population Samples in Maize Reveals Low Power of QTL Detection and Large Bias in Estimates of QTL Effects
Abstract
The efficiency of marker-assisted selection (MAS) depends on the power of quantitative trait locus (QTL) detection and unbiased estimation of QTL effects. Two independent samples (N = 344 and 107) of F2 plants were genotyped for 89 RFLP markers. For each sample, testcross (TC) progenies of the corresponding F3 lines with two testers were evaluated in four environments. QTL for grain yield and other agronomically important traits were mapped in both samples. QTL effects were estimated from the same data as used for detection and mapping of QTL (calibration) and, based on QTL positions from calibration, from the second, independent sample (validation). For all traits and both testers we detected a total of 107 QTL with N = 344, and 39 QTL with N = 107, of which only 20 were in common. Consistency of QTL effects across testers was in agreement with corresponding genotypic correlations between the two TC series. Most QTL displayed no significant QTL × environment nor epistatic interactions. Estimates of the proportion of the phenotypic and genetic variance explained by QTL were considerably reduced when derived from the independent validation sample as opposed to estimates from the calibration sample. We conclude that, unless QTL effects are estimated from an independent sample, they can be inflated, resulting in an overly optimistic assessment of the efficiency of MAS.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
An Approximate Distribution of Estimates of Variance Components
Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946) · Biometrics Bulletin · doi:10.2307/3002019 · Cited by 4,373
Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci.
Zeng, Z. B. (1994) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/136.4.1457 · Cited by 3,182
Haley, C. S., & Knott, S. A. (1992) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/hdy.1992.131 · Cited by 1,991
Cited by
Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e31818131e7 · Cited by 1,495
The use of molecular genetics in the improvement of agricultural populations
Dekkers, J. C. M., & Hospital, F. (2002) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg701 · Cited by 710
Large Upward Bias in Estimation of Locus-Specific Effects from Genomewide Scans
Göring, H. H. H., Terwilliger, J. D., & Blangero, J. (2001) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/324471 · Cited by 483
TUBEROSA, R. (2002) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcf134 · Cited by 397
Mapping As You Go: An Effective Approach for Marker‐Assisted Selection of Complex Traits
Podlich, D. W., Winkler, C. R., & Cooper, M. (2004) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.1560 · Cited by 169
Metadata
- Authors
- Melchinger, A. E., Utz, H. F., & Schön, C. C.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-05-01
- Volume
- 149
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 383-403
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W1895254745
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL) Mapping Using Different Testers and Independent Population Samples in Maize Reveals Low Power of QTL Detection and Large Bias in Estimates of QTL Effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/149.1.383
- The paper
- Melchinger, A. E., Utz, H. F., & Schön, C. C. (1998). Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL) Mapping Using Different Testers and Independent Population Samples in Maize Reveals Low Power of QTL Detection and Large Bias in Estimates of QTL Effects. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/149.1.383
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.