You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Comparing Power of Different Methods for QTL Detection
Ahmed Rebai, Bruno Goffinet and Brigitte Mangin
Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 87-99
Published by: International Biometric Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2533317
Page Count: 13
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Quantitative trait loci, Simulations, Approximation, Genetics, Musical intervals, Genotypes, Maximum likelihood estimation, Statistical discrepancies, Biometrics, Statistics
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
We compared the powers of two methods for detection of quantitative trait loci (QTL) using genetic markers, in the simple case of an interval between two codominant markers and a backcross population. The first method is the interval mapping approach, based on the use of likelihood ratio tests performed in many positions within the interval considered and the second is the classical analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing only on the positions of the two markers. For both approaches we took into account the correlation between tests performed at different markers or positions in the interval. Appropriate thresholds and powers of tests were then calculated using analytical formulations. Simulations were also done to check the validity of the approximations used to calculate the power of the interval mapping test. Results show that the interval mapping test is slightly more powerful (about 5%) than ANOVA for small intervals (less than 20 cM) and that, for quite large effects of the QTL, the advantage of interval mapping increases as the distance between markers increases. It is more than 30% for intervals of about 70 cM.
Biometrics © 1995 International Biometric Society