Skip to main content

Table 2 QTL results

From: QTL mapping reveals the genetic architecture of loci affecting pre- and post-zygotic isolating barriers in Louisiana Iris

Trait LG Position LR Additive Effect R2 2 LOD Interval
(a) BCIB QTL
Flowering time (days)       
dry 2007, n = 112 1 64.6 32.85 −3.20 0.15 57.1-76.3
dry 2006, n = 115 4 0.0 25.48 −4.71 0.15 0-7.5
dry 2007, n = 112 4 11.2 35.16 −3.22 0.16 0.8-18.7
dry 2007, n = 112 5 13.0 13.2 −1.80 0.05 2.9-26.9
wet 2006, n = 112 7 44.3 13.9 −3.20 0.09 19.1-49.5
wet 2006, n = 112 8 15.0 15.72 −3.76 0.13 0-32.4
dry 2006, n = 115 8 30.8 14.95 −3.74 0.09 7.7-45.3
dry 2006, n = 115 13 40.1 15.22 −4.18 0.10 33.6-41.1
Flood tolerance1 (n = 145) No QTL detected - - - - -
Long-term survival1 (n = 139) No QTL detected - - - - -
Pollen sterility2 (n = 184) 3 0.0 14.61 −17.42 0.05 0-11.9
  4 0.0 63.01 −38.26 0.26 0-3.4
Growth points/weight (g)       
dry 2006, n = 158 6 19.0 15.51 0.03 0.08 0-35.3
Inflorescence production1
wet 2007, n = 157 2 78.3 22.24 0.39 0.26 64-97.3
wet 2006, n = 158 11 61.3 12.44 −0.22 0.07 42.4-73.3
Proportion growth points producing an inflorescence
wet 2006, n = 87 16 13.3 13.31 0.14 0.11 2.7-30.7
Flowering nodes per inflorescence
dry 2007, n = 87 4 8.2 23.29 0.55 0.19 0-17.6
wet 2007, n = 130 4 9.2 17.94 0.51 0.11 0-17.4
dry 2006, n = 91 11 61.5 15.27 −0.56 0.12 54.3-73.3
dry 2006, n = 91 17 0.0 15.14 0.53 0.11 0-5.5
Flowers per node
dry 2006, n = 91 1 35.1 14.13 −0.14 0.14 13.6-48.1
dry 2007, n = 87 4 16.2 20.9 −0.09 0.19 8.8-49.6
dry 2007, n = 87 17 24.5 13.7 −0.09 0.11 19.6-34.5
wet 2007, n = 130 19 9.0 17 −0.10 0.11 0-11
Fruit set1
dry 2007, n = 86 4 0.0 47.46 0.51 0.39 0-9.2
wet 2007, n = 130 4 0.0 24.1 0.32 0.14 0-12.5
Proportion of flowers that set fruit      
dry 2006, n = 48 9 37.4 15.15 0.35 0.20 26.7-40.1
(b) BCIF QTL
Flowering time (days)       
dry 2007, n = 104 1 31.8 20.87 3.05 0.30 11.2-53.8
dry 2006, n = 97 1 54.5 21.44 4.67 0.15 29.4-66.4
dry 2007, n = 104 4 19.1 16.04 1.93 0.11 2.6-24.5
dry 2006, n = 107 10 7.8 14.28 3.67 0.09 0-17.9
dry 2007, n = 104 13 57.2 13.80 1.78 0.10 37.2-59.2
Flood tolerance1 (n = 145) 16 9 11.27 −0.14 0.07 0-31.4
Long-term survival1 (n = 139) 15 0 19.44 −0.22 0.11 0-18.7
Pollen sterility2 (n = 116) 9 11.4 11.55 6.85 0.08 0-29.2
Growth points/weight (g)
wet 2007, n = 69 6 16.1 13.99 −0.12 0.14 0-25.5
wet 2006, n = 68 8 13 13.16 −0.07 0.18 0-42.8
dry 2006, n = 69 21 0 13.33 0.04 0.14 0-2.6
Inflorescence production1       
wet 2007, n = 69 3 89.5 13.83 −0.24 0.14 69.9-89.5
Proportion growth points producing an inflorescence
dry 2006, n = 41 5 22.3 13.58 0.31 0.20 22-51.5
wet 2006, n = 48 8 36 14.27 0.24 0.21 0-39.1
dry 2007, n = 42 9 30 29.00 −0.10 0.34 20.4-36.7
dry 2007, n = 42 15 25 14.07 −0.08 0.17 6.2-29.3
Flowering nodes per inflorescence
wet 2006, n = 48 2 97 13.54 −0.56 0.15 65.1-100
dry 2007, n = 42 3 80.5 17.75 −0.73 0.30 60.2-88.5
wet 2006, n = 48 5 41.8 16.46 0.59 0.18 22.1-59.8
wet 2007, n = 64 5 54.5 13.65 0.41 0.17 36.5-83.8
dry 2006, n = 41 6 21.5 19.24 −0.78 0.22 16.2-25.6
dry 2007, n = 42 11 18 23.38 1.07 0.30 11.6-30.4
dry 2006, n = 41 19 9.6 19.19 −0.69 0.21 2.2-13.6
Flowers per node       
wet 2007, n = 64 1 83.1 18.49 −0.26 0.16 29.9-86.2
dry 2006, n = 41 9 47.1 17.52 −0.25 0.24 44.8-50.1
wet 2006, n = 48 12 48.3 13.76 −0.15 0.20 34.2-48.3
wet 2007, n = 64 19 9.6 13.83 −0.23 0.15 2.9-13.6
Fruit set1
dry 2007, n = 41 8 50.2 20.01 0.33 0.29 32.4-57.4
Proportion of flowers that set fruit
dry 2007, n = 39 11 0 12.17 0.17 0.16 0-9
dry 2007, n = 39 13 39.2 13.32 −0.18 0.16 30.8-59.2
wet 2006, n = 29 14 0 19.99 0.26 0.35 0-4.8
  1. 1measured as proportion of clones.
  2. 2measured as percentage sterile pollen.
  3. Traits assessed in different environmental conditions (wet/dry) and in different years (2006/2007) are noted, along with the number of individuals analyzed for each trait (n). Effects in BCIB are the result of I. fulva alleles and effects in BCIF are the result of I. brevicaulis alleles. Location of each QTL is presented as the linkage group (LG) followed by position on the linkage group (in Kosambi cM). The likelihood ratio (LR), the additive effect, percentage of variance explained (R2) and the 2 LOD confidence interval are also presented.