ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Estimating genetic variance contributed by a quantitative trait locus: A random model approach.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic dissection of grain yield and correlated proxy traits under suboptimal conditions.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- Genome-wide association studies and QTL mapping for traits deviating from normal distribution.National science review · 2026Article
- Evidence for natural selection shaping the evolution of collective behavior among globalbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Integrating natural variation through GWAS - genetics of drought and flood tolerance in grass pea reveal independent yet interconnected mechanisms.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- FGenes · 2025Article
- Modeling QTL-by-environment interactions for multi-parent populations.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Identification of Fusarium head blight sources of resistance and associated QTLs in historical and modern Canadian spring wheat.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detecting quantitative trait loci (QTL) and estimating QTL variances (represented by the squared QTL effects) are two main goals of QTL mapping and genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, there are issues associated with estimated QTL variances and such issues have not attracted much attention from the QTL mapping community. Estimated QTL variances are usually biased upwards due to estimation being associated with significance tests. The phenomenon is called the Beavis effect. However, estimated variances of QTL without significance tests can also be biased upwards, which cannot be explained by the Beavis effect; rather, this bias is due to the fact that QTL variances are often estimated as the squares of the estimated QTL effects. The parameters are the QTL effects and the estimated QTL variances are obtained by squaring the estimated QTL effects. This square transformation failed to incorporate the errors of estimated QTL effects into the transformation. The consequence is biases in estimated QTL variances. To correct the biases, we can either reformulate the QTL model by treating the QTL effect as random and directly estimate the QTL variance (as a variance component) or adjust the bias by taking into account the error of the estimated QTL effect. A moment method of estimation has been proposed to correct the bias. The method has been validated via Monte Carlo simulation studies. The method has been applied to QTL mapping for the 10-week-body-weight trait from an F2 mouse population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.