Models for Discrimination Between Alternative Modes of Inheritance

  • R. C. Elston
Part of the Advanced Series in Agricultural Sciences book series (AGRICULTURAL, volume 18)


Two extreme types of data may be available for discriminating between alternative modes of inheritance: data on two inbred lines, their F1 and the backcrosses, or data on a sample of relatives drawn from a random mating population. For the former kind of data a ten-parameter model is proposed that subsumes, as special cases, one-locus, two-locus, polygenic, or mixed major locus/polygenic inheritance for a quantitative trait For the latter kind of data three basic models are compared for detecting major gene segregation: the generalized major gene (transmission probability) model, the mixed major gene/polygenic inheritance model and the flexible regressive models. In all cases it is assumed that the environmental variation is normally distributed. The principle of maximizing expected entropy can be used to choose the best-fitting specific genetic hypothesis and, using the general model as a baseline, the likelihood ratio criterion can be used to test for departure from any specific hypothesis. It is recognized that these segregation analysis models can only suggest, never prove, the existence of monogenic segregation.


Transmission Probability Major Locus Backcross Generation Pedigree Data Polygenic Inheritance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akaike H (1977) On entropy maximization principle. In: Krishnaiah PR (ed) Applications of statistics. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 27–41Google Scholar
  2. Asamoah A, Wilson AF, Elston RC, Dalferes E Jr, Berenson GS (1987) Segregation and linkage analyses of dopamine-β-hydroylase activity in a six generation pedigree. Am J Med Genet 27:613–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonney GE (1984) On the statistical determination of major gene mechanisms in continuous human traits: regressive models. Am J Med Genet 18:731–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonney GE (1986) Regressive logistic models for familial disease and other binary traits. Biometrics 42:611–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyle CR, Elston RC (1979) Multifactorial genetic models for quantitative traits in humans. Biometrics 35:55–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Box GEP, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc B 26:211–252Google Scholar
  7. Cannings C, Thompson EA, Skolnick MH (1978) Probability functions on complex pedigrees. Adv Appl Prob 10:26–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demenais FM, Elston RC (1981) A general transmission probability model for pedigree data. Hum Hered 31:93–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elston RC (1981a) Segregation analysis. Adv Hum Genet 11:63–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Elston RC (1981b) Testing one-and two-locus hypotheses for the genetic differences of a qualitative trait between two homozygous lines. In: Gershon ES, Matthysse S, Breakefield XO, Ciaranello RD (eds) Genetic research strategies for psychobiology and psychiatry. The Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, pp 283–293Google Scholar
  11. Elston RC (1984) The genetic analysis of quantitative trait differences between two homozygous lines. Genetics 108:733–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eiston RC, Stewart J (1971) A general model for the genetic analysis of pedigree data. Hum Hered 21:523–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elston RC, Stewart J (1973) The analysis of quantitative traits for simple genetic models from parental, F1, and backcross data. Genetics 73:695–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Elston RC, Namboodiri KK, Kaplan E (1978) Resolution of major loci for quantitative traits. In: Morton NE, Chung CS (eds) Genetic epidemiology. Academic Press, New York, pp 223–246Google Scholar
  15. Hasstedt SJ (1982) A mixed model approximation for large pedigrees. Comput Biomed Res 15:295–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lalouel JM, Rao DC, Morton NE, Elston RC (1983) A unified model for complex segregation analysis. Am J Hum Genet 35:816–826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lange K, Elston RC (1975) Extensions to pedigree analysis. I. Likelihood calculations for simple and complex pedigrees. Hum Hered 25:95–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacLean CJ, Morton NE, Lew R (1975) Analysis of family resemblance. IV. Operational characteristics of segregation analysis. Am J Hum Genet 27:365–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Morton NE, MacLean CJ (1974) Analysis of resemblance III. Complex segregation of quantitative traits. Am J Hum Genet 26:489–503Google Scholar
  20. Ott J (1979) Maximum likelihood estimation by counting methods under polygenic and mixed models in human genetics. Am J Hum Genet 31:161–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilson AF, Elston RC, Siervogel RM, Weinshilbourm R, Ward LJ (1984) Linkage relationships between a major gene for catechol-o-methyltransferase activity and 25 polymorphic marker systems. Am J Med Genet 19:525–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wright (1934) The results of crosses between inbred strains of guinea pigs differing in numbers of digits. Genetics 19:537–551PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. C. Elston
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biometry and GeneticsLouisiana State University Medical CenterNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations