4.4 Article

A New Standard Genetic Map for the Laboratory Mouse

期刊

GENETICS
卷 182, 期 4, 页码 1335-1344

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.105486

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA34196, P30 CA034196] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL077796, R37 HL077796, R01 HL077796] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR053992, R21 AR053992] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NICHD NIH HHS [T32 HD007065, 5T32HD07065] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIGMS NIH HHS [P50 GM076468, GM070683, R01 GM070683, GM076468, GM074244, R01 GM074244] Funding Source: Medline
  6. Wellcome Trust [079912] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic maps provide a means to estimate the probability of the co-inheritance of linked loci as they are transmitted across generations in both experimental and natural populations. However, in the age of whole-genome sequences, physical distances measured in base pairs of DNA provide the standard coordinates for navigating the myriad features of genomes. Although genetic and physical maps are colinear, there are well-characterized and sometimes dramatic heterogeneities in the average frequency of meiotic recombination events that occur along the physical extent of chromosomes. There also are documented differences in the recombination landscape between the two sexes. We have revisited high-genetic map data from a large heterogeneous mouse population and have constructed a revised genetic map of the mouse genome, incorporating 10,195 single nucleotide polymorphisms using a set of 47 families comprising 3546 meioses. The revised map provides a different picture of recombination in the mouse from that reported previously We have further integrated the genetic and physical maps of the genome and incorporated SSLP markets from other genetic maps into this new framework. We demonstrate that utilization of the revised genetic map improves QTL mapping, partially due to the resolution of previously undetected errors in marker ordering along the chromosome.

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

4.4
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