Loading…

Bias and Sampling Error of the Estimated Proportion of Genotypic Variance Explained by Quantitative Trait Loci Determined From Experimental Data in Maize Using Cross Validation and Validation With Independent Samples

Cross validation (CV) was used to analyze the effects of different environments and different genotypic samples on estimates of the proportion of genotypic variance explained by QTL (p). Testcrosses of 344 F3 maize lines grown in four environments were evaluated for a number of agronomic traits. In...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Genetics (Austin) 2000-04, Vol.154 (4), p.1839-1849
Main Authors: Utz, H. Friedrich, Melchinger, Albrecht E, Schon, Chris C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-878c5958475e4a2d2cc1b9f5d13168f49da7fcefa430529cd63e34a819c8e6203
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-878c5958475e4a2d2cc1b9f5d13168f49da7fcefa430529cd63e34a819c8e6203
container_end_page 1849
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1839
container_title Genetics (Austin)
container_volume 154
creator Utz, H. Friedrich
Melchinger, Albrecht E
Schon, Chris C
description Cross validation (CV) was used to analyze the effects of different environments and different genotypic samples on estimates of the proportion of genotypic variance explained by QTL (p). Testcrosses of 344 F3 maize lines grown in four environments were evaluated for a number of agronomic traits. In each of 200 replicated CV runs, this data set was subdivided into an estimation set (ES) and various test sets (TS). ES were used to map QTL and estimate p for each run (p^ES) and its median (p~ES) across all runs. The bias of these estimates was assessed by comparison with the median (p~IS.ES) obtained from TS. We also used two independent validation samples derived from the same cross for further comparison. The median p~ES showed a large upward bias compared to p~TS.ES. Environmental sampling generally had a smaller effect on the bias of p~ES than genotypic sampling or both factors simultaneously. In independent validation, p~TS.ES was on average only 50% of p~ES. A wide range among p^ES reflected a large sampling error of these estimates. QTL frequency distributions and comparison of estimated QTL effects indicated a low precision of QTL localization and an upward bias in the absolute values of estimated QTL effects from ES. CV with data from three QTL studies reported in the literature yielded similar results as those obtained with maize testcrosses. We therefore recommend CV for obtaining asymptotically unbiased estimates of p and consequently a realistic assessment of the prospects of MAS.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/genetics/154.4.1839
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1461020</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>17526569</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-878c5958475e4a2d2cc1b9f5d13168f49da7fcefa430529cd63e34a819c8e6203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUsFuEzEQXSEQLYUv4OITnJLaa6-ze0GCNC2VggDRwtGaeGeTQbv2YjsN4Uv5HHaTgsrFI2vem_dm9LLspeBTwSt5vkaHiWw8F4WaqqkoZfUoOxWVkpNcS_E4O-Vc6ImeSXGSPYvxO-dcV0X5NDsRvNRaF_lp9vsdQWTgavYFur4lt2aLEHxgvmFpg2wRE3WQsGafgu99SOTd2LtC59O-J8u-QiBwdoD-7FsgN0BXe_Z5Cy5RgkR3yG4CUGJLb4ldYMLQHVCXwXcjCQN16BK07AISMHLsA9AvZLdxdDMPPsZBpKUaDuKj1wffb5Q27NrV2OPwuHTcA-Pz7EkDbcQX9_Usu71c3MzfT5Yfr67nb5cTq6RMk3JW2mI4ipoVqCCvc2vFqmqKWkihy0ZVNcwaiw0oyYu8srWWKBWUorIl6pzLs-zNcW6_XXVY28FCgNb0w1IQ9sYDmf87jjZm7e-MUFrww4BX9wOC_7HFmExH0WLbgkO_jUbMilwXuhqA8gi040kCNv9EBDdjIszfRJghEUaZMRED6_WRtaH1ZkcBTeygbQdPwux2uwfIP3pVvi0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17526569</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bias and Sampling Error of the Estimated Proportion of Genotypic Variance Explained by Quantitative Trait Loci Determined From Experimental Data in Maize Using Cross Validation and Validation With Independent Samples</title><source>Freely Accessible Science Journals</source><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Utz, H. Friedrich ; Melchinger, Albrecht E ; Schon, Chris C</creator><creatorcontrib>Utz, H. Friedrich ; Melchinger, Albrecht E ; Schon, Chris C</creatorcontrib><description>Cross validation (CV) was used to analyze the effects of different environments and different genotypic samples on estimates of the proportion of genotypic variance explained by QTL (p). Testcrosses of 344 F3 maize lines grown in four environments were evaluated for a number of agronomic traits. In each of 200 replicated CV runs, this data set was subdivided into an estimation set (ES) and various test sets (TS). ES were used to map QTL and estimate p for each run (p^ES) and its median (p~ES) across all runs. The bias of these estimates was assessed by comparison with the median (p~IS.ES) obtained from TS. We also used two independent validation samples derived from the same cross for further comparison. The median p~ES showed a large upward bias compared to p~TS.ES. Environmental sampling generally had a smaller effect on the bias of p~ES than genotypic sampling or both factors simultaneously. In independent validation, p~TS.ES was on average only 50% of p~ES. A wide range among p^ES reflected a large sampling error of these estimates. QTL frequency distributions and comparison of estimated QTL effects indicated a low precision of QTL localization and an upward bias in the absolute values of estimated QTL effects from ES. CV with data from three QTL studies reported in the literature yielded similar results as those obtained with maize testcrosses. We therefore recommend CV for obtaining asymptotically unbiased estimates of p and consequently a realistic assessment of the prospects of MAS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-6731</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1943-2631</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-2631</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/genetics/154.4.1839</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10866652</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Genetics Soc America</publisher><subject>Zea mays</subject><ispartof>Genetics (Austin), 2000-04, Vol.154 (4), p.1839-1849</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-878c5958475e4a2d2cc1b9f5d13168f49da7fcefa430529cd63e34a819c8e6203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-878c5958475e4a2d2cc1b9f5d13168f49da7fcefa430529cd63e34a819c8e6203</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Utz, H. Friedrich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melchinger, Albrecht E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schon, Chris C</creatorcontrib><title>Bias and Sampling Error of the Estimated Proportion of Genotypic Variance Explained by Quantitative Trait Loci Determined From Experimental Data in Maize Using Cross Validation and Validation With Independent Samples</title><title>Genetics (Austin)</title><description>Cross validation (CV) was used to analyze the effects of different environments and different genotypic samples on estimates of the proportion of genotypic variance explained by QTL (p). Testcrosses of 344 F3 maize lines grown in four environments were evaluated for a number of agronomic traits. In each of 200 replicated CV runs, this data set was subdivided into an estimation set (ES) and various test sets (TS). ES were used to map QTL and estimate p for each run (p^ES) and its median (p~ES) across all runs. The bias of these estimates was assessed by comparison with the median (p~IS.ES) obtained from TS. We also used two independent validation samples derived from the same cross for further comparison. The median p~ES showed a large upward bias compared to p~TS.ES. Environmental sampling generally had a smaller effect on the bias of p~ES than genotypic sampling or both factors simultaneously. In independent validation, p~TS.ES was on average only 50% of p~ES. A wide range among p^ES reflected a large sampling error of these estimates. QTL frequency distributions and comparison of estimated QTL effects indicated a low precision of QTL localization and an upward bias in the absolute values of estimated QTL effects from ES. CV with data from three QTL studies reported in the literature yielded similar results as those obtained with maize testcrosses. We therefore recommend CV for obtaining asymptotically unbiased estimates of p and consequently a realistic assessment of the prospects of MAS.</description><subject>Zea mays</subject><issn>0016-6731</issn><issn>1943-2631</issn><issn>1943-2631</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVUsFuEzEQXSEQLYUv4OITnJLaa6-ze0GCNC2VggDRwtGaeGeTQbv2YjsN4Uv5HHaTgsrFI2vem_dm9LLspeBTwSt5vkaHiWw8F4WaqqkoZfUoOxWVkpNcS_E4O-Vc6ImeSXGSPYvxO-dcV0X5NDsRvNRaF_lp9vsdQWTgavYFur4lt2aLEHxgvmFpg2wRE3WQsGafgu99SOTd2LtC59O-J8u-QiBwdoD-7FsgN0BXe_Z5Cy5RgkR3yG4CUGJLb4ldYMLQHVCXwXcjCQN16BK07AISMHLsA9AvZLdxdDMPPsZBpKUaDuKj1wffb5Q27NrV2OPwuHTcA-Pz7EkDbcQX9_Usu71c3MzfT5Yfr67nb5cTq6RMk3JW2mI4ipoVqCCvc2vFqmqKWkihy0ZVNcwaiw0oyYu8srWWKBWUorIl6pzLs-zNcW6_XXVY28FCgNb0w1IQ9sYDmf87jjZm7e-MUFrww4BX9wOC_7HFmExH0WLbgkO_jUbMilwXuhqA8gi040kCNv9EBDdjIszfRJghEUaZMRED6_WRtaH1ZkcBTeygbQdPwux2uwfIP3pVvi0</recordid><startdate>20000401</startdate><enddate>20000401</enddate><creator>Utz, H. Friedrich</creator><creator>Melchinger, Albrecht E</creator><creator>Schon, Chris C</creator><general>Genetics Soc America</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000401</creationdate><title>Bias and Sampling Error of the Estimated Proportion of Genotypic Variance Explained by Quantitative Trait Loci Determined From Experimental Data in Maize Using Cross Validation and Validation With Independent Samples</title><author>Utz, H. Friedrich ; Melchinger, Albrecht E ; Schon, Chris C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-878c5958475e4a2d2cc1b9f5d13168f49da7fcefa430529cd63e34a819c8e6203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Zea mays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Utz, H. Friedrich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melchinger, Albrecht E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schon, Chris C</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Genetics (Austin)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Utz, H. Friedrich</au><au>Melchinger, Albrecht E</au><au>Schon, Chris C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bias and Sampling Error of the Estimated Proportion of Genotypic Variance Explained by Quantitative Trait Loci Determined From Experimental Data in Maize Using Cross Validation and Validation With Independent Samples</atitle><jtitle>Genetics (Austin)</jtitle><date>2000-04-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>154</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1839</spage><epage>1849</epage><pages>1839-1849</pages><issn>0016-6731</issn><issn>1943-2631</issn><eissn>1943-2631</eissn><abstract>Cross validation (CV) was used to analyze the effects of different environments and different genotypic samples on estimates of the proportion of genotypic variance explained by QTL (p). Testcrosses of 344 F3 maize lines grown in four environments were evaluated for a number of agronomic traits. In each of 200 replicated CV runs, this data set was subdivided into an estimation set (ES) and various test sets (TS). ES were used to map QTL and estimate p for each run (p^ES) and its median (p~ES) across all runs. The bias of these estimates was assessed by comparison with the median (p~IS.ES) obtained from TS. We also used two independent validation samples derived from the same cross for further comparison. The median p~ES showed a large upward bias compared to p~TS.ES. Environmental sampling generally had a smaller effect on the bias of p~ES than genotypic sampling or both factors simultaneously. In independent validation, p~TS.ES was on average only 50% of p~ES. A wide range among p^ES reflected a large sampling error of these estimates. QTL frequency distributions and comparison of estimated QTL effects indicated a low precision of QTL localization and an upward bias in the absolute values of estimated QTL effects from ES. CV with data from three QTL studies reported in the literature yielded similar results as those obtained with maize testcrosses. We therefore recommend CV for obtaining asymptotically unbiased estimates of p and consequently a realistic assessment of the prospects of MAS.</abstract><pub>Genetics Soc America</pub><pmid>10866652</pmid><doi>10.1093/genetics/154.4.1839</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-6731
ispartof Genetics (Austin), 2000-04, Vol.154 (4), p.1839-1849
issn 0016-6731
1943-2631
1943-2631
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1461020
source Freely Accessible Science Journals; Oxford Journals Online; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Zea mays
title Bias and Sampling Error of the Estimated Proportion of Genotypic Variance Explained by Quantitative Trait Loci Determined From Experimental Data in Maize Using Cross Validation and Validation With Independent Samples
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T12%3A05%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bias%20and%20Sampling%20Error%20of%20the%20Estimated%20Proportion%20of%20Genotypic%20Variance%20Explained%20by%20Quantitative%20Trait%20Loci%20Determined%20From%20Experimental%20Data%20in%20Maize%20Using%20Cross%20Validation%20and%20Validation%20With%20Independent%20Samples&rft.jtitle=Genetics%20(Austin)&rft.au=Utz,%20H.%20Friedrich&rft.date=2000-04-01&rft.volume=154&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1839&rft.epage=1849&rft.pages=1839-1849&rft.issn=0016-6731&rft.eissn=1943-2631&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/genetics/154.4.1839&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E17526569%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-878c5958475e4a2d2cc1b9f5d13168f49da7fcefa430529cd63e34a819c8e6203%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17526569&rft_id=info:pmid/10866652&rfr_iscdi=true