4.5 Article

Comparison of biometrical models for joint linkage association mapping

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 332-340

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2011.78

关键词

joint linkage association mapping; model comparison; QTL detection

资金

  1. German Federal ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Joint linkage association mapping (JLAM) combines the advantages of linkage mapping and association mapping, and is a powerful tool to dissect the genetic architecture of complex traits. The main goal of this study was to use a cross-validation strategy, resample model averaging and empirical data analyses to compare seven different biometrical models for JLAM with regard to the correction for population structure and the quantitative trait loci (QTL) detection power. Three linear models and four linear mixed models with different approaches to control for population stratification were evaluated. Models A, B and C were linear models with either cofactors (Model-A), or cofactors and a population effect (Model-B), or a model in which the cofactors and the single-nucleotide polymorphism effect were modeled as nested within population (Model-C). The mixed models, D, E, F and G, included a random population effect (Model-D), or a random population effect with defined variance structure (Model-E), a kinship matrix defining the degree of relatedness among the genotypes (Model-F), or a kinship matrix and principal coordinates (Model-G). The tested models were conceptually different and were also found to differ in terms of power to detect QTL. Model-B with the cofactors and a population effect, effectively controlled population structure and possessed a high predictive power. The varying allele substitution effects in different populations suggest as a promising strategy for JLAM to use Model-B for the detection of QTL and then to estimate their effects by applying Model-C. Heredity (2012) 108, 332-340; doi:10.1038/hdy.2011.78; published online 31 August 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据