Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec 16;7(2):543–556. doi: 10.1534/g3.116.038026

Table 3. Allele counts of the two homeolog pairs displaying pseudolinkage within females.

Marker Pair Genotypes Linkage Group Parental Phases (Marker A/Marker B) Recombinant Phases (Marker A/Marker B) Chi-Squared P-value
Marker A Marker B Marker A Marker B Marker A Marker B Alleles Count Alleles Count
TP47181 TP21253 G,C A,G AC13 Pseudolink G/A 32 C/A 23 18.7 3.20E−04
C/G 25 G/G 5
TP21253 TP30908 A,G T,C Pseudolink AC34 A/T 43 A/C 12 36 7.50E−08
G/C 23 G/T 7
TP47181 TP30908 G,C T,C AC13 AC34 G/T 23 C/T 27 4.2 0.243
C/C 21 G/C 14
TP10591 TP15996 T,G G,A AC21 Pseudolink T/G 14 G/G 4 15.8 0.0013
G/A 13 T/A 1
TP15996 TP32826 G,A A,T Pseudolink AC01 G/A 18 A/A 0 33 3.20E−07
A/T 14 G/T 0
TP10591 TP32826 T,G A,T AC21 AC01 T/A 22 G/A 23 7.9 0.049
G/T 27 T/T 10

These instances appear to result from an excess of parental phase genotypes. Flanking markers from both linkage groups with the most complete genotypes, along with the principle marker causing pseudolinkage, are displayed. Note, for AC21/AC01, the marker causing pseudolinkage (TP15996) was heterozygous in both parents (ab X ab cross). Therefore, the phases for half of the progeny could not be ascertained. Chi-squared goodness of fit tests were performed for each pair of alleles, comparing the observed genotype frequencies to a null hypothesis of a 1:1:1:1 genotype distribution.