Table 2.
QTL | Detected in | Allelic effectb | Average marker distancec | Segregation ratio in F2d | Frequency genotype “homozygous L. saligna” | Detection chance in F2 | Detection chance in BILse |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rbq1 | F2 + pBIL7.2 | dom | 2.1 | 37:44:8 | 0.09 | 0.91 | 0.98 |
Rbq3/rbq3a | F2 + BIL9.2 | dom/rec | 2.7 | 29:49:9 | 0.11 | 0.86/ 0.38 | 0.98 |
Rbq2 | F2 | dom | 2 | 1:2:1 | 0.25 | 0.81 | 0.98 |
rbq7 | BIL4.2 | rec | 2.5 | 1:2:1 | 0.25 | 0.79 | 0.98 |
rbq5 | BIL2.2 | rec | 3.9 | 1:2:1 | 0.25 | 0.74 | 0.98 |
rbq6 | BIL6.3 | rec | 3.3 | 36:46:9 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 0.98 |
rbq4 | BIL8.2 | rec | 2.3 | 30:90:6 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.98 |
aThe inheritance of rbq3 is still ambiguous
bdom = dominant, rec = recessive
cAverage marker distance in QTL mapping region
dThe segregation ratio in F2 between genotypes (a:h:b); a = homozygous L. sativa, h = heterozygous, b = homozygous L. saligna
eNote that the detection chance in BILs does not depend on any of the factors that vary between the F2-detected QTLs