. 2014 Sep 16;127(11):2515–2524. doi: 10.1007/s00122-014-2395-7

Table 3.

QTL analysis for heading date and yield traits using near isogenic lines

Generation	Name	Trait^a	Phenotypic mean^b		P	A ^c	R ² (%)^d
Generation	Name	Trait^a	NIL^ZS97	NIL^MY46	P	A ^c	R ² (%)^d
BC₂F₉	C1	HD	66.4	66.2	0.4852
BC₂F₉	C2	HD	65.2	60.0	<0.0001	−2.6	77.4
BC₂F₉	C3	HD	65.9	61.0	<0.0001	−2.4	79.1
		NGP	114.1	106.2	<0.0001	−4.0	12.9
		NSP	141.1	130.6	<0.0001	−5.2	18.0
		TGW	25.4	25.3	0.5176
		GY	22.2	19.7	<0.0001	−1.2	19.7
BC₂F₁₁	CJ1	HD	69.1	63.5	<0.0001	−2.8	74.2
		NGP	103.4	88.1	<0.0001	−7.7	20.6
		NSP	132.6	114.1	<0.0001	−9.2	22.3
		TGW	23.3	23.2	0.9133
		GY	24.0	21.7	<0.0001	−1.1	10.0
BC₂F₁₁	CJ2	HD	69.1	64.0	<0.0001	−2.5	69.8
		NGP	110.1	93.6	<0.0001	−8.2	36.4
		NSP	139.1	121.6	<0.0001	−8.8	41.5
		TGW	22.6	23.3	0.3015
		GY	23.9	21.8	<0.0001	−1.0	10.2
BC₂F₁₁	CJ3	HD	69.6	69.8	0.5986
		NGP	108.5	108.8	0.8894
		NSP	136.3	135.8	0.8421
		TGW	22.7	22.2	0.1313
		GY	22.0	24.5	0.1921

^aHD, Heading date (d); NSP, number of spikelets per panicle; NGP, number of grains per panicle; TGW, 1,000-grain weight (g); GY, grain yield per plant (g)

^bNIL^ZS97 and NIL^MY46 are near isogenic lines with Zhenshan 97 and Milyang 46 homozygous genotypes in the segregating region, respectively

^cAdditive effect of replacing a Zhenshan 97 allele by a Milyang 46 allele

^dProportion of phenotypic variance explained by the QTL effect