Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparison of locations of GLS resistance QTL identified in this and previous studies

From: Combining powers of linkage and association mapping for precise dissection of QTL controlling resistance to gray leaf spot disease in maize (Zea mays L.)

Chr Bin Flanking markers (bi-parental approach)/a marker (GWAS) Physical distance between flanking markers Mapping method Reference
1 1.01 SYN20881 11,914,709 GWAS [52]
1.02 PZB01957.1 22,892,866-28,421,841 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
1.04 PHM5098.25 56,747,253–83,780,725 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
1.04-1.06 asg30a-bnl5.59a (60,090,292 – 60,678,227) - (183,804,477-183,817,286) Bi-parental [17]
1.05 asg3a-umc1515a (77,240,735-83,433,335) – (97,880,433-103,311,831) Bi-parental [16]
1.05 PZE-101097594 90,945,315 GWAS [52]
1.05 PZE-101101408 97,337,186 GWAS [52]
1.05 bmc1811b 82,574,898- 175,642,920 Bi-parental [41]
1.05-1.06 PZA01041.1c-bnlg1057a 129,815,592 - (189,086,513 - 191,089,856) Bi-parental [15]
1.06 CSU3a –CSU61a (82,574,898- 82,577,349) (180,716,274- 181,194,957) Bi-parental [39]
1.06 CSU92a -bnl5.59a (183,804,477 - 183,817,286) – (183,804,477 - 183,817,286) Bi-parental [10]
1.06 PHM1968.22 161,027,952–208,733,347 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
1.07 bmc1025b 199,107,718-228,644,352 Bi-parental [41]
1.08 TIDP5276c – Bz2-2c 232,515,087 - 236,103,313 Bi-parental/GWAS This study
1.08-1.09 Bz2.2d-PHM14475.7c 241,373,004 - 257,186,738 Bi-parental [15]
1.10 umc147b 280,774,747-282,021,034 Bi-parental [12]
1.09-1.11 bnlg1720a -umc1500a (274,709,266-283,188,769) - (283,188,067-287,148,444) Bi-parental [40]
6 6.00 PZE-106000325 702,334 GWAS [52]
6.02-6.04 PZA00214.1 86,257,528–113,885,960 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
6.02-6.05 Npi1373b-umc46a (71,014,931 – 97,108,931) - (143,466,865-144,383,248) Bi-parental [39]
6.04-6.05 PZA02673.1 118,087,791–147,224,252 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
6.04 Idp4869 d – umc1857d 105,638,745 - 109,323,163 Bi-parental/GWAS This study
6.05 PZE-106073523 129,373,812 GWAS [52]
SYN26162 146,548,071   
6.06-6.07 Umc1423 153,804,114 – 169,184,492 Bi-parental [12]
Umc36b    
7 7.02 asg34a – umc116a (14,027,268-14,618,739)-(127,094,683-130,251,052) Bi-parental [39]
7.02 Umc1393 118,052,274 – 120,761,437 Bi-parental [12]
7.02 TIDP5499d – crt2d 14,308,967 - 24,692,177 Bi-parental/GWAS This study
7.02 bnlg398a -bnlg657a (21,547,438-23,542,864)-(129,109,884-129,237,926) Bi-parental [16]
7.02 PZE-107040293 67,970,430 GWAS [52]
PZE-107040370 68,121,109   
7.02 phm4818.15c – pza00132.17c 31,773,571-79,009,472 Bi-parental [15]
7.02-7.03 PZA00986.1 13,174,365–142,783,202 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
7.02-7.03 bnlg1808 129,908,091 Bi-parental [12]
bnl15.21 132,550,575   
7.03 PZE-107086511 136,155,325 GWAS [52]
SYN38495 141,187,793   
7.03 SYN34849 152,695,327 GWAS [52]
7.03-7.04 umc111(psy3)a -asg32a (143,407,361-147,088,644)-(157,471,090-158,238,561) Bi-parental [39]
7.03 bmc1305b 129,865,901 - 156,132,738 Bi-parental [41]
8 8.01 SYN10053 1,816,317 GWAS [52]
8.01 GZ204e-IDP5e 8,616,802 - 10,074,106 Bi-parental [40]
8.02 Umc1974d -TIDP8777d 18,198,319 - 23,105,913 Bi-parental/GWAS This study
8.03 PZA01470.1 23,769,876–101,178,933 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
8.03 PZE-108028005 28,557,135 GWAS [52]
8.03 IDP8925d -TIDP2787d 73,871,364 - 92,953,180 Bi-parental/GWAS This study
8.05 PZE-108075552 129,767,067 GWAS [52]
8.05 ufg80a -bnlg666a (130,740,118-131,241,328)-(133,561,516-133,936,736) Bi-parental [16]
8.05 umc89a -csu31a (135,953,318-136,041,040)-(142,142,542-160,300,237) Bi-parental [39]
8.06 PZA03651.1 135,091,499–156,907,035 NAM (joint linkage mapping) [13]
8.06 PZE-108108866 160,936,029 GWAS [52]
8.06 umc117a -umc216(ald2)a (162,531,179-162,630,591)-(163,307,256-163,309,969) Bi-parental [10]
8.08 Dupssr14e f-phm14046.9f (171,763,860-171,763,964)-175,362,738 Bi-parental [15]
  1. aPrecise physical position of a marker was not provided at IBM2 2008 Neighbors genetic map. Instead, MaizeGDB suggests chromosomal interval where this marker could be located (http://www.maizegdb.org/data_center/map)
  2. bPhysical position of the marker was impossible to identify as the sequence information of the marker used in the study was not provided by authors. Instead, the physical borders of a bin where marker was reported to be located were provided
  3. cPhysical position of the marker was precisely identified based on sequence information of the context sequence leveraged from http://www.panzea.org/#!data/cyci
  4. dPhysical boundaries of QTL identified in this study were shown by public markers whose positions were very close to proprietary markers used to map GLS resistance QTL in this study
  5. ePhysical position of the markers were determined by the aligning sequences of PCR primers of flanking markers provided in the paper
  6. fPhysical position of the marker was determined by the aligning its sequences of PCR primers provided at Maize GDB