Search

Abstract Two previously described QTL mapping methods, which combine linkage analysis (LA) and linkage disequilibrium analysis (LD), were compared for their ability to detect and map multiple QTL. The methods were tested on five different simulated data sets in which the exact QTL positions were known. Every simulated data set contained two QTL, but the distances between these QTL were varied from 15 to 150 cM. The results show that the single QTL mapping method (LDLA) gave good results as long as the distance between the QTL was large (> 90 cM). When the distance between the QTL was reduced, the single QTL method had problems positioning the two QTL and tended to position only one QTL, i.e. a "ghost" QTL, in between the two real QTL positions. The multi QTL mapping method (MP-LDLA) gave good results for all evaluated distances between the QTL. For the large distances between the QTL (> 90 cM) the single QTL method more often positioned the QTL in the correct marker bracket, but considering the broader likelihood peaks of the single point method it could be argued that the multi QTL method was more precise. Since the distances were reduced the multi QTL method was clearly more accurate than the single QTL method. The two methods combine well, and together provide a good tool to position single or multiple QTL in practical situations, where the number of QTL and their positions are unknown.

Abstract Background Genetically, SNP that are in complete linkage disequilibrium with the causative SNP cannot be distinguished from the causative SNP. The Complete Linkage Disequilibrium (CLD) test presented here tests whether a SNP is in complete LD with the causative mutation or not. The performance of the CLD test is evaluated in 1000 simulated datasets. Methods The CLD test consists of two steps i.e. analysis I and analysis II. Analysis I consists of an association analysis of the investigated region. The log-likelihood values from analysis I are next ranked in descending order and in analysis II the CLD test evaluates differences in log-likelihood ratios between the best and second best markers. Under the null-hypothesis distribution, the best SNP is in greater LD with the QTL than the second best, while under the alternative-CLD-hypothesis, the best SNP is alike-in-state with the QTL. To find a significance threshold, the test was also performed on data excluding the causative SNP. The 5th, 10th and 50th highest TCLD value from 1000 replicated analyses were used to control the type-I-error rate of the test at p = 0.005, p = 0.01 and p = 0.05, respectively. Results In a situation where the QTL explained 48% of the phenotypic variance analysis I detected a QTL in 994 replicates (p = 0.001), where 972 were positioned in the correct QTL position. When the causative SNP was excluded from the analysis, 714 replicates detected evidence of a QTL (p = 0.001). In analysis II, the CLD test confirmed 280 causative SNP from 1000 simulations (p = 0.05), i.e. power was 28%. When the effect of the QTL was reduced by doubling the error variance, the power of the test reduced relatively little to 23%. When sequence data were used, the power of the test reduced to 16%. All SNP that were confirmed by the CLD test were positioned in the correct QTL position. Conclusions The CLD test can provide evidence for a causative SNP, but its power may be low in situations with closely linked markers. In such situations, also functional evidence will be needed to definitely conclude whether the SNP is causative or not.