Skip to main content
PMC home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1995 Jul;140(3):1105–1109. doi: 10.1093/genetics/140.3.1105

Interval Mapping of Viability Loci Causing Heterosis in Arabidopsis

T Mitchell-Olds 1
PMCID: PMC1206665  PMID: 7672581

Abstract

The genetic basis of heterosis has implications for many problems in genetics and evolution. Heterosis and inbreeding depression affect human genetic diseases, maintenance of genetic variation, evolution of breeding systems, agricultural productivity, and conservation biology. Despite decades of theoretical and empirical studies, the genetic basis of heterosis has remained unclear. I mapped viability loci contributing to heterosis in Arabidopsis. An overdominant factor with large effects on viability mapped to a short interval on chromosome I. Homozygotes had 50% lower viability than heterozygotes in this chromosomal region. Statistical analysis of viability data in this cross indicates that observed viability heterosis is better explained by functional overdominance than by pseudo-overdominance. Overdominance sometimes may be an important cause of hybrid vigor, especially in habitually inbreeding species. Finally, I developed a maximum likelihood interval mapping procedure that can be used to examine chromosomal regions showing segregation distortion or viability selection.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (525.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ang L. H., Deng X. W. Regulatory hierarchy of photomorphogenic loci: allele-specific and light-dependent interaction between the HY5 and COP1 loci. Plant Cell. 1994 May;6(5):613–628. doi: 10.1105/tpc.6.5.613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrett S. C., Charlesworth D. Effects of a change in the level of inbreeding on the genetic load. Nature. 1991 Aug 8;352(6335):522–524. doi: 10.1038/352522a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dooner H. K., Keller J., Harper E., Ralston E. Variable Patterns of Transposition of the Maize Element Activator in Tobacco. Plant Cell. 1991 May;3(5):473–482. doi: 10.1105/tpc.3.5.473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Feingold E., Brown P. O., Siegmund D. Gaussian models for genetic linkage analysis using complete high-resolution maps of identity by descent. Am J Hum Genet. 1993 Jul;53(1):234–251. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Griffing B., Zsiros E. Heterosis associated with genotype-environment interactions. Genetics. 1971 Jul;68(3):443–455. doi: 10.1093/genetics/68.3.443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Houle D. Allozyme-associated heterosis in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1989 Dec;123(4):789–801. doi: 10.1093/genetics/123.4.789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Koehn R. K., Diehl W. J., Scott T. M. The differential contribution by individual enzymes of glycolysis and protein catabolism to the relationship between heterozygosity and growth rate in the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis. Genetics. 1988 Jan;118(1):121–130. doi: 10.1093/genetics/118.1.121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lande R. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science. 1988 Sep 16;241(4872):1455–1460. doi: 10.1126/science.3420403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lander E. S., Botstein D. Mapping mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics. 1989 Jan;121(1):185–199. doi: 10.1093/genetics/121.1.185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lander E. S., Green P., Abrahamson J., Barlow A., Daly M. J., Lincoln S. E., Newberg L. A., Newburg L. MAPMAKER: an interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics. 1987 Oct;1(2):174–181. doi: 10.1016/0888-7543(87)90010-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mangin B., Goffinet B. Statistical testing in genetic linkage under heterogeneity. Biometrics. 1994 Mar;50(1):308–308. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Paterson A. H., Damon S., Hewitt J. D., Zamir D., Rabinowitch H. D., Lincoln S. E., Lander E. S., Tanksley S. D. Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits in tomato: comparison across species, generations, and environments. Genetics. 1991 Jan;127(1):181–197. doi: 10.1093/genetics/127.1.181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pederson D. G. Environmental stress, heterozygote advantage and genotype-environment interaction in Arabidopsis. Heredity (Edinb) 1968 Feb;23(1):127–138. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1968.11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Shoukri M. M., Lathrop G. M. Statistical testing of genetic linkage under heterogeneity. Biometrics. 1993 Mar;49(1):151–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Simmons M. J., Crow J. F. Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annu Rev Genet. 1977;11:49–78. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.11.120177.000405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Stuber C. W., Lincoln S. E., Wolff D. W., Helentjaris T., Lander E. S. Identification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize inbred lines using molecular markers. Genetics. 1992 Nov;132(3):823–839. doi: 10.1093/genetics/132.3.823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES