4.4 Article

Bayesian shrinkage analysis of quantitative trait loci for dynamic traits

Journal

GENETICS
Volume 176, Issue 2, Pages 1169-1185

Publisher

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.106.064279

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM055321] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM055321, R01-GM55321] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many quantitative traits are measured repeatedly during the life of an organism. Such traits are called dynamic traits. The pattern of the changes of a dynamic trait is called the growth trajectory. Studying the growth trajectory may enhance our it understanding of the genetic architecture of the growth trajectory. Recently, we developed an interval-mapping procedure to map QTL for dynamic traits tinder the maximum-likelihood framework. We fit the growth trajectory by Legendre polynomials. The method intended to map one QTL at a time and the entire QTL analysis involved scanning the entire genome by fitting multiple single-QTL models. In this study, we propose a Bayesian shrinkage analysis for estimating and mapping multiple QTL in a single model. The method is a combination between the shrinkage mapping for individual quantitative traits and the Legendre polynomial analysis for dynamic traits. The multiple-QTL model is implemented in two ways: (1) a fixed-interval approach where a QTL is placed in each marker interval and (2) a moving-interval approach where the position of a QTL can be searched in a range that covers many marker intervals. Simulation study shows that the Bayesian shrinkage method generates much better signals for QTL than the interval-mapping approach. We propose several alternative methods to present the results of the Bayesian shrinkage analysis. In particular, we found that the Wald test-statistic profile can serve as a mechanism to test the significance of a putative QTL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available