Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 132, Issue 8, pp 2237–2252 | Cite as

A novel high-density grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) integrated linkage map using GBS in a half-diallel population

  • Javier Tello
  • Catherine Roux
  • Hajar Chouiki
  • Valérie Laucou
  • Gautier Sarah
  • Audrey Weber
  • Sylvain Santoni
  • Timothée Flutre
  • Thierry Pons
  • Patrice This
  • Jean-Pierre Péros
  • Agnès DoligezEmail author
Original Article


Key message

A half-diallel population involving five elite grapevine cultivars was generated and genotyped by GBS, and highly-informative segregation data was used to construct a high-density genetic map for Vitis vinifera L.


Grapevine is one of the most relevant fruit crops in the world. Deeper genetic knowledge could assist modern grapevine breeding programs to develop new wine grape varieties able to face climate change effects. To assist in the rapid identification of markers for crop yield components, grape quality traits and adaptation potential, we generated a large Vitis vinifera L. population (N = 624) by crossing five red wine cultivars in a half-diallel scheme, which was subsequently sequenced by an efficient GBS procedure. A high number of fully informative genetic variants was detected using a novel mapping approach capable of reconstructing local haplotypes from adjacent biallelic SNPs, which were subsequently used to construct the densest consensus genetic map available for the cultivated grapevine to date. This 1378.3-cM map integrates 10 bi-parental consensus maps and orders 4437 markers in 3353 unique positions on 19 chromosomes. Markers are well distributed all along the grapevine reference genome, covering up to 98.8% of its genomic sequence. Additionally, a good agreement was observed between genetic and physical orders, adding confidence in the quality of this map. Collectively, our results pave the way for future genetic studies (such as fine QTL mapping) aimed to understand the complex relationship between genotypic and phenotypic variation in the cultivated grapevine. In addition, the method used (which efficiently delivers a high number of fully informative markers) could be of interest to other outbred organisms, notably perennial fruit crops.


Author contribution statement

PT, JPP and AD conceived the idea of the study and contributed to funding acquisition; CR, TP and AD obtained and/or assisted in the maintenance of the plant material used in this work; CR and AW carried out the genotyping of the plant material; SS defined GBS protocols; HC and GS defined bioinformatics pipelines for GBS data analysis; JT, CR and VL performed bioinformatics analysis of GBS data; JT, TF and AD defined scripts for genetic mapping; JT analysed data and wrote the manuscript with the inputs from all authors, who approved the final version of the manuscript; AD coordinated this work.


JT was supported by the Agreenskills + Fellowship Programme, which has received funding from the EU's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. FP7-609398. This work was partially supported by the Géno-Vigne® Technological Unit, the Agropolis Fondation (under the ARCAD project No 0900–001), and by the CIRAD - UMR AGAP HPC Data Center of the South Green Bioinformatics platform ( Authors acknowledge Thierry Lacombe for his help with the French Network of Grapevine Repositories Database, and the staff of the INRA Vassal grapevine collection for their help with the crosses and the maintenance of the plantlets before being transferred to the Domaine du Chapitre Experimental Vineyard.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The authors declare that the experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were carried out.

Availability of data and materials

Information on the plant material used in this work can be retrieved from the French Network of Grapevine Repositories Database ( The raw sequence data have been deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database ( Datasets are available in the Portail Data INRA public repository ( All other relevant information is specified in the manuscript or included as Additional Files.

Supplementary material

122_2019_3351_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (119 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PDF 118 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM2_ESM.txt (19 kb)
Supplementary file2 (TXT 19 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (4.3 mb)
Supplementary file3 (XLSX 4428 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (217 kb)
Supplementary file4 (PDF 216 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (111 kb)
Supplementary file5 (PDF 110 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (417 kb)
Supplementary file6 (PDF 416 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM7_ESM.xlsx (214 kb)
Supplementary file7 (XLSX 214 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM8_ESM.xlsx (22 kb)
Supplementary file8 (XLSX 22 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM9_ESM.xlsx (141 kb)
Supplementary file9 (XLSX 141 kb)
122_2019_3351_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (112 kb)
Supplementary file10 (PDF 111 kb)


  1. Ahfock D, Wood I, Stephen S, Cavanagh CR, Huang BE (2014) Characterizing uncertainty in high-density maps from multiparental populations. Genetics 198:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacilieri R, Lacombe T, Le Cunff L, Di Vecchi-Staraz M, Laucou V, Genna B, Péros JP, This P, Boursiquot JM (2013) Genetic structure in cultivated grapevine is linked to geography and human selection. BMC Plant Biol. 13:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barba P, Cadle-Davidson L, Harriman J, Glaubitz JC, Brooks S, Hyma K, Resich B (2014) Grapevine powdery mildew resistance and susceptibility loci identified on a high-resolution SNP map. Theor Appl Genet 127:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barba P, Lillis J, Luce RS, Travdadon R, Osier M, Baumgartner K, Wilcox WF, Reisch BI, Cadle-Davidson L (2018) Two dominant loci determine resistance to Phomopsis cane lesions in F1 families of hybrid grapevines. Theor Appl Genet 131:1173–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanc G, Charcosset A, Mangin B, Gallais A, Moreau L (2006) Connected populations for detecting quantitative trait loci and testing for epistasis: an application in maize. Theor Appl Genet 113:206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanc G, Charcosset A, Veyrieras JB, Gallais A, Moreau L (2008) Marker-assisted selection efficiency in multiple connected populations: a simulation study based on the results of a QTL detection experiment in maize. Euphytica 161:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodenes C, Chancerel E, Ehrenmann F, Kremer A, Plomion C (2016) High-density linkage mapping and distribution of segregation distortion regions in the oak genome. DNA Res 23:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broman KW, Wu H, Sen S, Chuchill GA (2003) R/qtl: QTL mapping in experimental crosses. Bioinformatics 19:889–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabezas JA, Cervera MT, Ruiz-Garcia L, Carreno J, Martinez-Zapater JM (2006) A genetic analysis of seed and berry weight in grapevine. Genome 49:1572–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canaguier A et al (2017) A new version of the grapevine reference genome assembly (12X.v2) and of its annotation (VCost.v3). Genom Data 14:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carreño I et al. (2015) Quantitative genetic analysis of berry firmness in table grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Tree Genet Genom 11:818Google Scholar
  12. Chen J, Wang N, Fang LC, Liang ZC, Li SH, Wu BH (2015) Construction of a high-density genetic map and QTLs mapping for sugars and acids in grape berries. BMC Plant Biol 15:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cilas C, Bouharmont P, Boccara M, Eskes AB, Baradat P (1998) Prediction of genetic value for coffee production in Coffea arabica from a half-diallel with lines and hybrids. Euphytica 104:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark MD et al (2018) Quantitative trait loci identified for foliar phylloxera resistance in a hybrid grape population. Aust J Grape Wine Res 24:292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collard BCY, Jahufer MZZ, Brouwer JB, Pang ECK (2005) An introduction to markers, quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping and marker-assisted selection for crop improvement: The basic concepts. Euphytica 142:169–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Correa J et al (2016) New stable QTLs for berry firmness in table grapes. Am J Enol Vitic 67:21–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costantini L, Battilana J, Lamaj F, Fanizza G, Grando MS (2008) Berry and phenology-related traits in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): From Quantitative Trait Loci to underlying genes. BMC Plant Biol 8:38Google Scholar
  18. Coupel-Ledru A et al (2016) Reduced nighttime transpiration is a relevant breeding target for high water-use efficiency in grapevine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:8963–8968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. da Silva Linge C, Antanaviciute L, Abdelghafar A, Arús P, Bassi D, Rossini L, Ficklin S, Gasic K (2018) High-density multi-population consensus genetic linkage map for peach. PLoS One 13(11):e0207724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Danecek P et al (2011) The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27:2156–2158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Givry S, Bouchez M, Chabrier P, Milan D, Schiex T (2005) Carthagene: multipopulation integrated genetic and radiation hybrid mapping. Bioinformatics 21:1703–1704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Koning D-J, McIntyre LM (2017) Back to the future: multiparent populations provide the key to unlocking the genetic basis of complex traits. Genetics 206:527–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deschamps S, llaca V, May GD (2012) Genotyping-by-sequencing in plants. Biology 1:460–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Di Pierro EA et al (2016) A high-density, multi-parental SNP genetic map on apple validates a new mapping approach for outcrossing species. Hortic Res 3:16057sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doligez A et al (2006) An integrated SSR map of grapevine based on five mapping populations. Theor Appl Genet 113:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Doligez A, Audiot E, Baumes R, This P (2006) QTLs for muscat flavor and monoterpenic odorant content in grapevine Vitis vinifera L. Mol Breed 18:109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Doligez A et al (2013) New stable QTLs for berry weight do not colocalize with QTLs for seed traits in cultivated grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). BMC Plant Biol 13:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dong H et al (2018) Genetic mapping of biomass yield in three interconnected Miscanthus populations. GCB Bioenergy 10:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edae EA, Olivera PD, Jin Y, Rouse MN (2017) Genotyping-by-Sequencing facilitates a high-density consensus linkage map for Aegilops umbellulata, a wild relative of cultivated wheat G3. Bethesda 7:1551–1561Google Scholar
  30. Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, Mitchell SE (2011) A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS One 6:e19379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Endelman JB, Plomion C (2014) LPmerge: an R package for merging genetic maps by linear programming. Bioinformatics 30:1623–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fanizza G, Lamaj F, Costantini L, Chaabane R, Grando MS (2005) QTL analysis for fruit yield components in table grapes Vitis vinifera. Theor Appl Genet 111:658–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fierst JL (2015) Using linkage maps to correct and scaffold de novo genome assemblies: methods, challenges, and computational tools. Front Genet 6:220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fodor A et al (2014) Genome-wide prediction methods in highly diverse and heterozygous species: proof-of-concept through simulation in grapevine. Plos One 9:e110436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fullwood MJ, Wei C-L, Liu ET, Ruan Y (2009) Next-generation DNA sequencing of paired-end tags (PET) for transcriptome and genome analyses. Genome Res 19:521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gabay G, Dahan Y, Izhaki Y, Faigenboim A, Ben-Ari G, Elkind Y, Flaishman MA (2018) High-resolution genetic linkage map of European pear (Pyrus communis) and QTL fine-mapping of vegetative budbreak time. BMC Plant Biol 18:175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grattapaglia D, Sederoff R (1994) Genetic-linkage maps of Eucalyptus-grandis and Eucalyptus-urophylla using a pseudo-testcross—mapping strategy and RAPD markers. Genetics 137:1121–1137Google Scholar
  38. Griffing B (1956) Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust J Biol Sci 9:463–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guo DL, Zhao HL, Li Q, Zhang GH, Jiang JF, Liu CH, Yu YH (2019) Genome-wide association study of berry related traits in grape [Vitis vinifera L.] based on genotyping-by-sequencing markers. Hortic Res 6:11Google Scholar
  40. Hanly S et al (2002) A genetic linkage map of willow (Salix viminalis) based on AFLP and microsatellite markers. Theor Appl Genet 105:1087–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harushima Y et al (1998) A high-density rice genetic linkage map with 2275 markers using a single F2 population. Genetics 148:479Google Scholar
  42. Hill T et al (2015) Ultra-high density, transcript-based genetic maps of pepper define recombination in the genome and synteny among related species G3. Bethesda 5:2341–2355Google Scholar
  43. Houel C et al. (2015) Identification of stable QTLs for vegetative and reproductive traits in the microvine (Vitis vinifera L.) using the 18 K Infinium chip. BMC Plant Biol 15:205Google Scholar
  44. Huber DA, White TL, Little RC, Hodge GR (1992) Ordinary least squares estimation of general and specic combining ability from half-diallel mating designs. Silvae Genet 41:263–273Google Scholar
  45. Hyma KE et al (2015) Heterozygous mapping strategy (HetMappS) for high resolution genotyping-by-sequencing markers: a case study in grapevine. PLoS One 10:e0134880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. International Cassava Genetic Map Consortium (2015) High-resolution linkage map and chromosome-scale genome assembly for cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) from 10 populations G3. Bethesda 5:133–144Google Scholar
  47. Jaillon O et al (2007) The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major angiosperm phyla. Nature 449:463–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jestin C, Bardol N, Lodé M, Duffé P, Domin C, Vallée P, Mangin B, Manzanares-Dauleux MJ, Delourme R (2015) Connected populations for detecting quantitative resistance factors to phoma stem canker in oilseed rape Brassica napus L. Mol Breed 35:167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ji F et al (2018) Construction of a SNP-based high-density genetic map using genotyping by sequencing (GBS) and QTL analysis of nut traits in Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume). Front Plant Sci 9:816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kim C, Guo H, Kong W, Chandnani R, Shuang L-S, Paterson AH (2016) Application of genotyping by sequencing technology to a variety of crop breeding programs. Plant Sci 242:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Köster J, Rahmann S (2012) Snakemake—a scalable bioinformatics workflow engine. Bioinformatics 28:2520–2522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lacombe T, Boursiquot J-M, Laucou V, Di Vecchi Staraz M, Péros JP, This P (2013) Large-scale parentage analysis in an extended set of grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). Theor Appl Genet 126:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ladejobi O et al (2016) Maximizing the potential of multi-parental crop populations. Appl Transl Genom 11:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Le Clerc V, Marques S, Suel A, Huet S, Hamama L, Voisine L, Auperpin E, Jourdan M, Barrot L, Prieur R, Briard M (2015) QTL mapping of carrot resistance to leaf blight with connected populations: stability across years and consequences for breeding. Theor Appl Genet 128:2177–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Li H et al (2009) The sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li H (2013) Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv preprint arXiv 1303.3997Google Scholar
  57. Liu D, Ma C, Hong W, Huang L, Liu M, Liu H, Zeng H, Deng D, Xin H, Song J, Xu C, Sun X, Hou X, Wang X, Zheng H (2014) Construction and analysis of high-density linkage map using high-throughput sequencing data. PLoS One 9:e98855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martin M (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J 17:10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Matheson A, Spencer DJ, Magnussen D (1994) Optimum age for selection in Pinus radiata using basal area under bark for age:age correlation. Silvae Genet 43:352–357Google Scholar
  60. McKenna A et al (2010) The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res 20:1297–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Milner SG, Maccaferri M, Huang BE, Mantovani P, Massi A, Frascaroli E, Tuberosa R, Salvi S (2016) A multiparental cross population for mapping QTL for agronomic traits in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. durum). Plant Biotechnology Journal 14:735–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Muranty H (1996) Power of tests for quantitative trait loci detection using full-sib families in different schemes. Heredity 76:156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pascual L et al (2016) Dissecting quantitative trait variation in the resequencing era:complementarity of bi-parental, multi-parental and association panels. Plant Sci 242:120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Paulo M-J, Boer M, Huang X, Koornneef M, Van Eeuwijk F (2008) A mixed model QTL analysis for a complex cross population consisting of a half diallel of two-way hybrids in Arabidopsis thaliana: analysis of simulated data. Euphytica 161:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pauly L, Flajoulot S, Garon J, Julier B, Béguier V, Barre P (2012) Detection of favorable alleles for plant height and crown rust tolerance in three connected populations of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) Theor Appl Genet 124:1139–1153Google Scholar
  66. Pavy N, Pelgas B, Laroche J, Rigault P, Isabel N, Bousquet J (2012) A spruce gene map infers ancient plant genome reshuffling and subsequent slow evolution in the gymnosperm lineage leading to extant conifers. BMC Biol 10:84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pelsy F, Dumas V, Bévilacqua L, Hockquigny S, Merdinglu D (2015) Chromosome replacement and deletion lead to clonal polymorphism of berry color in grapevine. PLOS Genet 11:e1005081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pierozzi NI, Moura MF (2016) Karyotype analysis in grapevines. Rev Bras Frutic 38:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Plomion C et al (2014) Genome-wide distribution of genetic diversity and linkage disequilibrium in a mass-selected population of maritime pine. BMC Genom 15:171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Poland JA, Rife TW (2012) Genotyping-by-Sequencing for plant breeding and genetics. Plant Genome 5:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Purcell S et al (2007) PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81:559–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rastas P, Paulin L, Hanski I, Lehtonen R, Auvinen P (2013) Lep-MAP: fast and accurate linkage map construction for large SNP datasets. Bioinformatics 29:3128–3134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Richter R, Gabriel D, Rist F, Topfer R, Zyprian E (2018) Identification of co-located QTLs and genomic regions affecting grapevine cluster architecture. Theor Appl Genet 1:19. Google Scholar
  74. Ritter E, Salamini F (1996) The calculation of recombination frequencies in crosses of allogamous plant species with applicatins to linkage mapping. Genet Res 67:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Saptoka S, Chen L-L, Yang S, Hyma KE, Cadle-Davidson L, Hwang C-F (2019) Construction of a high-density linkage map and QTL detection of downy mildew resistance in Vitis aestivalis-derived ‘Norton’. Theor Appl Genet 132:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schlautman B et al (2017) Construction of a high-density American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) composite map using genotyping-by-sequencing for multi-pedigree linkage mapping G3. Bethesda 7:1177–1189Google Scholar
  77. Senthilvel S, Ghosh A, Shaik M, Shaw RK, Bagali PG (2019) Development and validation of an SNP genotyping array and construction of a high-density linkage map in castor. Sci Rep 9:3003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith HM, Smith BP, Morales NB, Moskwa S, Clingeleffer PR, Thomas MR (2018) SNP markers tightly linked to root knot nematode resistance in grapevine (Vitis cinerea) identified by a genotyping-by-sequencing approach followed by Sequenom MassARRAY validation. PLoS One 13:e0193121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stam P (1993) Construction of integrated genetic linkage maps by means of a new computer package: JoinMap. Plant J 3:739–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stephan W, Langley CH (1998) DNA polymorphism in Lycopersicon and crossing-over per physical length. Genetics 150:1585–1593Google Scholar
  81. Teh SL, Fresnedo-Ramírez J, Clark MD, Gadoury D, Sun Q, Cadle-Davidson L, Luby JJ (2017) Genetic dissection of powdery mildew resistance in interspecific half-sib grapevine families using SNP-based maps. Mol Breed 37:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tello J, Torres-Pérez R, Grimplet J, Carbonell-Bejerano P, Martínez-Zapater JM, Ibáñez J (2015) Polymorphisms and minihaplotypes in the VvNAC26 gene associate with berry size variation in grapevine. BMC Plant Biol 15:253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tello J, Torres-Pérez R, Grimplet J, Ibáñez J (2016) Association analysis of grapevine bunch traits using a comprehensive approach. Theor Appl Genet 129:227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tisné S, Pomiès V, Riou V, Syahputra I, Cochard B, Denis M (2017) Identification of Ganoderma disease resistance loci using natural field infection of an oil palm multiparental population G3. Bethesda 7:1683–1692Google Scholar
  85. Töpfer R, Hausmann L, Harst M, Maul E, Zyprian E, Eibach R (2011) New horizons for grapevine breeding. Fruit, Veg Cereal Sci Biotech 5:79–100Google Scholar
  86. Van Ooijen JW (2006) JoinMap 4.0, Software for the calculation of genetic linkage maps in experimental populations.Google Scholar
  87. Vezzulli S et al (2008) A reference integrated map for cultivated grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) from three crosses, based on 283 SSR and 501 SNP-based markers. Theor Appl Genet 117:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Visser T (1976) A comparison of apple and pear seedlings with reference to the juvenile period. II. Mode of inheritance. Euphytica 25:339–342Google Scholar
  89. Wang S et al (2015) Sequence-based ultra-dense genetic and physical maps reveal structural variations of allopolyploid cotton genomes. Genome Biol 16:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wang J et al (2017) Construction of a high-density genetic map for grape using specific length amplified fragment (SLAF) sequencing. PLoS One 12:e0171728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Welter L, Göktürk-Baydar N, Akkurt M, Maul E, Eibach R, Töpfer R, Zyprian E (2007) Genetic mapping and localization of quantitative trait loci affecting fungal disease resistance and leaf morphology in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L). Mol Breed 20:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wenzl P et al (2016) A high-density consensus map of barley linking DArT markers to SSR, RFLP and STS loci and agricultural traits. BMC Genomics 7:206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Westbrook JW et al (2015) A consensus genetic map for Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii and extent of linkage disequilibrium in two genotype-phenotype discovery populations of Pinus taeda G3. Bethesda 5:1685–1694Google Scholar
  94. Wu HX, Matheson AC (2000) Analysis of half-diallel mating designs with missing crosses: Theory and SAS program for testing and estimating GCA and SCA fixed effects. Silvae Genet 49:130–137Google Scholar
  95. Wu Y, Close TJ, Lonardi S (2011) Accurate construction of consensus genetic maps via integer linear programming. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 8:381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Xu Y, Li P, Yang Z, Xu C (2017) Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci in crops. Crop J 5:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yobrégat O (2018) Introduction to resistant vine types: a brief history and overview of the situation. OENO One 52:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhu J, Guo Y, Su K, Liu Z, Ren Z, Li K, Guo X (2018) Construction of a highly saturated genetic map for Vitis by next-generation restriction site-associated DNA sequencing. BMC Plant Biol 18:347CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR AGAPUniversity of Montpellier-CIRAD-INRA-Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.UMT Geno-Vigne®IFV-INRA-Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations