Abstract
Genetic linkage maps are often based on maximum-likelihood estimates of recombination fractions which are converted into map units by mapping functions. This paper presents a cost analysis of linkage analysis for a segregating F2␣population with codominant or dominant molecular markers and a qualitative monogenic dominant–recessive trait. For illustration, a disease-resistance trait is considered, where the susceptible allele is recessive. Three sub-populations of the F2 can be used for linkage analysis [susceptible (= recessive) individuals, resistant (= dominant) individuals, complete F2]. While it is well-known that recessive individuals are more informative than dominant individuals, it is not obvious a priori, which of the three sub-populations should be preferred, when costs of phenotyping and genotyping are taken into consideration. A comparative economic analysis of alternative procedures of linkage detection based on these three sub-populations does exhibit a clear economic superiority of the sub-population of susceptible (= recessive) individuals, when costs of genotyping are high. This cost-effectiveness is due to the higher information content of this sub-population compared to the sub-population of dominant (= resistant) individuals and also compared to the complete F2. Our final conclusion/recommendation is as follows: If the cost to genotype an individual is sufficiently large compared with the cost to phenotype an individual, then linkage analysis and genetic mapping should be only based on susceptible (= recessive) individuals. Conversely, if the cost of phenotyping exceeds that for genotyping, it may be preferable to genotype all plants. The exact conditions under which a strategy is preferable are described in the paper.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Dreher K, Khairallah M, Ribaut JM, Morris M (2003) Money matters (I): costs of field and laboratory procedures associated with conventional and marker-assisted maize breeding at CIMMYT. Mol Breed 11:221–234
Edwards AWF (1972) Likelihood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Frisch M, Quint M, Lübberstedt T, Melchinger AE (2004) Duplicate marker loci can result in incorrect locus orders on linkage maps. Theor Appl Genet 109:305–316
Hoisington DA, Melchinger AE (2004) From theory to practice: Marker-assisted selection in maize. In: Lörz H, Wenzel G (eds) Molecular marker systems in plant breeding and crop improvement (Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, Vol. 55). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 335–352
Huehn M (1995) Determining the linkage of disease-resistance genes to molecular markers: the LOD SCORE method revisited with regard to necessary sample sizes. Theor Appl Genet 90:841–846
Huehn M, Piepho HP (2003) Determining the sample size for co-dominant molecular marker-assisted linkage detection for a monogenic qualitative trait by controlling the type-I and type-II errors in a segregating F2 population. Theor Appl Genet 106:840–845
Kuchel H, Ye G, Fox R, Jefferies S (2005) Genetic and economic analysis of a targeted marker-assisted wheat breeding strategy. Mol Breed 16:67–78
Moreau L, Lemarie S, Charcosset A, Gallais A (2000) Economic efficiency on one cycle of marker-assisted selection. Crop Sci 40:329–337
Morris M, Dreher K, Ribaut JM, Khairallah M (2003) Money matters (II): costs of maize inbred line conversion schemes at CIMMYT using conventional and marker-assisted selection. Mol Breed 11:235–247
Ott J (1991) Analysis of human genetic linkage. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Ragot M, Hoisington DA (1993) Molecular markers for plant breeding: comparisons of RFLP and RAPD genotyping costs. Theor Appl Genet 86:975–984
Yu K, Park SJ, Poysa V (2000) Marker-assisted selection of common beans for resistance to common bacterial blight: efficacy and economics. Plant Breed 119:411–415
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Huehn, M., Piepho, HP. A simple note on how to save money in linkage analysis. Mol Breeding 18, 291–300 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-006-9013-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-006-9013-6