Empirical confidence intervals (CIs) for the estimated quantitative trait locus (QTL) location from selective and non-selective non-parametric bootstrap resampling methods were compared for a genome scan involving an Angus×Brahman reciprocal fullsib backcross population. Genetic maps, based on 357 microsatellite markers, were constructed for 29 chromosomes using CRI-MAP V2.4. Twelve growth, carcass composition and beef quality traits (n = 527–602) were analysed to detect QTLs utilizing (composite) interval mapping approaches. CIs were investigated for 28 likelihood ratio test statistic (LRT) profiles for the one QTL per chromosome model. The CIs from the non-selective bootstrap method were largest (87·7 cM average or 79·2% coverage of test chromosomes). The Selective II procedure produced the smallest CI size (42·3 cM average). However, CI sizes from the Selective II procedure were more variable than those produced by the two LOD drop method. CI ranges from the Selective II procedure were also asymmetrical (relative to the most likely QTL position) due to the bias caused by the tendency for the estimated QTL position to be at a marker position in the bootstrap samples and due to monotonicity and asymmetry of the LRT curve in the original sample.

Most current linkage analyses assume identical fractions of meiotic recombination between homologous marker loci of the two sexes. This assumption is not realistic, because considerable sex-related differences have been observed in recombination fraction. In this paper, a general EM-based algorithm is presented to estimate sex-specific recombination fractions for a mixed set of molecular markers segregating differently in a full-sib family derived from two heterozygous parents. The asymptotic variances of the estimates of linkage specifically for each of the parents are evaluated using a numerical analysis based on information functions. This approach will have important implications for precise gene mapping based on sex-specific linkage maps.

Epistatic variance can be an important source of variation for complex traits. However, detecting epistatic effects is difficult primarily due to insufficient sample sizes and lack of robust statistical methods. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian method to map multiple quantitative trait loci (QTLs) with epistatic effects. The method can map QTLs in complicated mating designs derived from the cross of two inbred lines. In addition to mapping QTLs for quantitative traits, the proposed method can even map genes underlying binary traits such as disease susceptibility using the threshold model. The parameters of interest are various QTL effects, including additive, dominance and epistatic effects of QTLs, the locations of identified QTLs and even the number of QTLs. When the number of QTLs is treated as an unknown parameter, the dimension of the model becomes a variable. This requires the reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. The utility of the proposed method is demonstrated through analysis of simulation data.

Previous studies have noted that the estimated positions of a large proportion of mapped quantitative trait loci (QTLs) coincide with marker locations and have suggested that this indicates a bias in the mapping methodology. In this study we predict the expected proportion of QTLs with positions estimated to be at the location of a marker and further examine the problem using simulated data. The results show that the higher proportion of putative QTLs estimated to be at marker positions compared with non-marker positions is an expected consequence of the estimation methods. The study initially focused on a single interval with no QTLs and was extended to include multiple intervals and QTLs of large effect. Further, the study demonstrated that the larger proportion of estimated QTL positions at the location of markers was not unique to linear regression mapping. Maximum likelihood produced similar results, although the accumulation of positional estimates at outermost markers was reduced when regions outside the linkage group were also considered. The bias towards marker positions is greatest under the null hypothesis of no QTLs or when QTL effects are small. This study discusses the impact the findings could have on the calculation of thresholds and confidence intervals produced by bootstrap methods.