PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8695177

[Analytic methods for seed models with genotype x environment interactions].

J Zhu
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Genetic models with genotype effect (G) and genotype x environment interaction effect (GE) are proposed for analyzing generation means of seed quantitative traits in crops. The total genetic effect (G) is partitioned into seed direct genetic effect (G0), cytoplasm genetic of effect (C), and maternal plant genetic effect (Gm). Seed direct genetic effect (G0) can be further partitioned into direct additive (A) and direct dominance (D) genetic components. Maternal genetic effect (Gm) can also be partitioned into maternal additive (Am) and maternal dominance (Dm) genetic components. The total genotype x environment interaction effect (GE) can also be partitioned into direct genetic by environment interaction effect (G0E), cytoplasm genetic by environment interaction effect (CE), and maternal genetic by environment interaction effect (GmE). G0E can be partitioned into direct additive by environment interaction (AE) and direct dominance by environment interaction (DE) genetic components. GmE can also be partitioned into maternal additive by environment interaction (AmE) and maternal dominance by environment interaction (DmE) genetic components. Partitions of genetic components are listed for parent, F1, F2 and backcrosses. A set of parents, their reciprocal F1 and F2 seeds is applicable for efficient analysis of seed quantitative traits. MINQUE(0/1) method can be used for estimating variance and covariance components. Unbiased estimation for covariance components between two traits can also be obtained by the MINQUE(0/1) method. Random genetic effects in seed models are predictable by the Adjusted Unbiased Prediction (AUP) approach with MINQUE(0/1) method. The jackknife procedure is suggested for estimation of sampling variances of estimated variance and covariance components and of predicted genetic effects, which can be further used in a t-test for parameter. Unbiasedness and efficiency for estimating variance components and predicting genetic effects are tested by Monte Carlo simulations.

Explore related subjects

GenotypeModels, GeneticSeedsEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Zhu. 1996. [Analytic methods for seed models with genotype x environment interactions].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8695177/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Comparison of methods for analysis of selective genotyping survival data.

Survival traits and selective genotyping datasets are typically not normally distributed, thus common models used to identify QTL may not be statistically appropriate for their analysis. The objective of the present study was to compare models for identification of QTL associated with survival traits, in particular when combined with selective genotyping. Data were simulated to model the survival distribution of a population of chickens challenged with Marek disease virus. Cox proportional hazards (CPH), linear regression (LR), and Weibull models were compared for their appropriateness to analyze the data, ability to identify associations of marker alleles with survival, and estimation of effects when all individuals were genotyped (full genotyping) and when selective genotyping was used. Little difference in power was found between the CPH and the LR model for low censoring cases for both full and selective genotyping. The simulated data were not transformed to follow a Weibull distribution and, as a result, the Weibull model generally resulted in less power than the other two models and overestimated effects. Effect estimates from LR and CPH were unbiased when all individuals were genotyped, but overestimated when selective genotyping was used. Thus, LR is preferred for analyzing survival data when the amount of censoring is low because of ease of implementation and interpretation. Including phenotypic data of non-genotyped individuals in selective genotyping analysis increased power, but resulted in LR having an inflated false positive rate, and therefore the CPH model is preferred for this scenario, although transformation of the data may also make the Weibull model appropriate for this case. The results from the research presented herein are directly applicable to interval mapping analyses.

Genotype↗