Table 3.
Trait | QTL | Linkage group | Linked marker | Position (cM) | Marker interval | LOD | Additivity | Effect (%) | CIM threshold |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RLHT | |||||||||
rlht5.1** | 5 | S5_28173385 | 142.61 | 135.3–149.0 | 3.86 | −0.04 | 20.4 | 3.03 | |
RLPC | |||||||||
rlpc1.1 | 1a | S1_1860959 | 13.21 | 0–29.4 | 3.95 | −0.04 | 5.2 | 3.12 | |
rlpc2.1 | 2 | S2_861442 | 2.71 | 0–12.0 | 4.72 | −0.05 | 7.5 | ||
rlpc3.1** | 3 | S3_32129158 | 133.41 | 130.8–137.2 | 6.83 | −0.08 | 8.6 | ||
rlpc4.1** | 4 | S4_992878 | 4.41 | 0–7.5 | 6.21 | −0.06 | 8.3 | ||
SLHT | |||||||||
slht3.1 | 3 | S3_32129158 | 133.41 | 131.6–136.7 | 5.57 | −0.06 | 7 | 3.02 | |
slht4.1 | 4 | S4_992878 | 4.41 | 0–8.1 | 4.3 | −0.05 | 5.3 | ||
slht6.1 | 6 | S6_32050861 | 156.71 | 142.4–156.9 | 4.18 | −0.04 | 10.2 | ||
SLPC | |||||||||
slpc2.1 | 2 | S2_861442 | 2.71 | 0–15.5 | 5.38 | −0.12 | 19 | 3.12 | |
slpc4.1 | 4 | S4_1357063 | 5.21 | 0–8.8 | 4.96 | −0.07 | 8.1 | ||
slpc3.1 | 3 | S3_17056945 | 85.71 | 70.3–98.8 | 7.97 | −0.05 | 8.6 | ||
slpc5.1 | 5 | S5_5758689 | 49.21 | 38.1–55.5 | 5.75 | 0.03 | 6.6 | ||
slpc6.1 | 6 | S6_32050861 | 156.71 | 135.0–156.9 | 7.75 | −0.04 | 13.2 | ||
slpc10.2 | 10b | S10_19121694 | 26.31 | 10.4–30.4 | 7.87 | −0.20 | 17.1 | ||
slpc10.3 | 10b | S10_19259739 | 27.31 | 11.7–32.2 | 5.69 | 0.13 | 17.9 |
The QTL with LOD score higher than the threshold values from CIM model, linked marker and marker intervals are presented here. The QTL positions and effects are presented from the MIM analysis. The negative additivity values represent the effect from “N22” parental allele and positive additivity values represent the effect from “IR64” parental allele, obtained as R2 values representing phenotypic variance that was explained by genetic variance in the MIM model.
Detected in both CIM and MIM models.
Unmarked QTL were detected using MIM model only.