Detecting the Undetected: Estimating the Total Number of Loci Underlying a Quantitative Trait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have begun to reveal the genes underlying quantitative trait differences between closely related populations. Not all quantitative trait loci (QTL) are, however, equally likely to be detected. QTL studies involve a limited number of crosses, individuals, and genetic markers and, as a result, often have little power to detect genetic factors of small to moderate effects. In this article, we develop an estimator for the total number of fixed genetic differences between two parental lines. Like the Castle-Wright estimator, which is based on the observed segregation variance in classical crossbreeding experiments, our QTL-based estimator requires that a distribution be specified for the expected effect sizes of the underlying loci. We use this expected distribution and the observed mean and minimum effect size of the detected QTL in a likelihood model to estimate the total number of loci underlying the trait difference. We then test the QTL-based estimator and the Castle-Wright estimator in Monte Carlo simulations. When the assumptions of the simulations match those of the model, both estimators perform well on average. The 95% confidence limits of the Castle-Wright estimator, however, often excluded the true number of underlying loci, while the confidence limits for the QTL-based estimator typically included the true value approximately 95% of the time. Furthermore, we found that the QTL-based estimator was less sensitive to dominance and to allelic effects of opposite sign than the Castle-Wright estimator. We therefore suggest that the QTL-based estimator be used to assess how many loci may have been missed in QTL studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".