Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wolf, D. P.
Right arrow Articles by Hallauer, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wolf, D. P.
Right arrow Articles by Hallauer, A. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The Journal of Heredity 2000:91(5)
© 2000 The American Genetic Association 91:384-391

Estimates of genetic variance in an F2 maize population

DP Wolf1, LA Peternelli2, and AR Hallauer3,*

1Golden Harvest Research, North Platte, Nebraska, USA 2Universidade Federal De Viçosa, MG, Brazil 3Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA *Corresponding author E-mail: hallauer@iastate.edu

Maize (Zea mays L.) breeders have used several genetic-statistical models to study the inheritance of quantitative traits. These models provide information on the importance of additive, dominance, and epistatic genetic variance for a quantitative trait. Estimates of genetic variances are useful in understanding heterosis and determining the response to selection. The objectives of this study were to estimate additive and dominance genetic variances and the average level of dominance for an F2 population derived from the B73 x Mo17 hybrid and use weighted least squares to determine the importance of digenic epistatic variances relative to additive and dominance variances. Genetic variances were estimated using Design III and weighted least squares analyses. Both analyses determined that dominance variance was more important than additive variance for grain yield. For other traits, additive genetic variance was more important than dominance variance. The average level of dominance suggests either overdominant gene effects were present for grain yield or pseudo-overdominance because of linkage disequilibrium in the F2 population. Epistatic variances generally were not significantly different from zero and therefore were relatively less important than additive and dominance variances. For several traits estimates of additive by additive epistatic variance decreased estimates of additive genetic variance, but generally the decrease in additive genetic variance was not significant.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GeneticsHome page
B. Stich, J. Yu, A. E. Melchinger, H.-P. Piepho, H. F. Utz, H. P. Maurer, and E. S. Buckler
Power to Detect Higher-Order Epistatic Interactions in a Metabolic Pathway Using a New Mapping Strategy
Genetics, May 1, 2007; 176(1): 563 - 570.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
B. Kusterer, J. Muminovic, H. F. Utz, H.-P. Piepho, S. Barth, M. Heckenberger, R. C. Meyer, T. Altmann, and A. E. Melchinger
Analysis of a Triple Testcross Design With Recombinant Inbred Lines Reveals a Significant Role of Epistasis in Heterosis for Biomass-Related Traits in Arabidopsis
Genetics, April 1, 2007; 175(4): 2009 - 2017.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.