CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 464Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Theoretical Basis of the Beavis Effect

Xu, Shizhong·2003·Genetics
DOI 10.1093/genetics/165.4.2259
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The core of statistical inference is based on both hypothesis testing and estimation. The use of inferential statistics for QTL identification thus includes estimation of genetic effects and statistical tests. Typically, QTL are reported only when the test statistics reach a predetermined critical value. Therefore, the estimated effects of detected QTL are actually sampled from a truncated distribution. As a result, the expectations of detected QTL effects are biased upward. In a simulation study, William D. Beavis showed that the average estimates of phenotypic variances associated with correctly identified QTL were greatly overestimated if only 100 progeny were evaluated, slightly overestimated if 500 progeny were evaluated, and fairly close to the actual magnitude when 1000 progeny were evaluated. This phenomenon has subsequently been called the Beavis effect. Understanding the theoretical basis of the Beavis effect will help interpret QTL mapping results and improve success of marker-assisted selection. This study provides a statistical explanation for the Beavis effect. The theoretical prediction agrees well with the observations reported in Beavis's original simulation study. Application of the theory to meta-analysis of QTL mapping is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/genetics/165.4.2259

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • In many crosses, the estimated effect size is inflated by the Beavis effect or winner's curse.

    “In many cases as well, the effect size estimated in the cross will be an overestimate due to the Beavis effect/winner’s curse101,102”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [101]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Xu, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Xu, Shizhong
ORCID
Xu, Shizhong
Venue
Genetics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-12-01
Volume
165
Issue
4
Pages
2259-2268
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
DOI
10.1093/genetics/165.4.2259
OpenAlex
W2153222781
Cited by
464
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 30
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Locations
  • Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM055321)
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
QTL mapping, QTL effect estimation, truncated distributions, sample size, phenotypic variance, marker-assisted selection, QTL meta-analysis, hypothesis testing
MeSH terms
Chromosome Mapping, Genetic Markers, Genetics, Population, Humans, Models, Genetic, Models, Theoretical, 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