The development of molecular marker technology has generated renewed interest in linkage mapping. An appropriate mapping population, a suitable marker system, and a robust computer software for analyses of marker genotype and trait phenotype data are the basic requirements for a successful mapping project. Mapping populations are usually obtained from controlled crosses between two, sometimes more, parents. The decisions on the selection of parents and mating design used for the development of a mapping population depend mainly on the objectives of the study. The parents of mapping populations must have sufficient variation for the traits of interest at both the DNA sequence and the phenotype level. The more is the extent of DNA sequence variation, the greater is the chance of finding polymorphic makers. When the objective is to search for genes controlling a particular trait, genetic variation for the target trait between the selected parents is important. Thus, the selection of parents for developing the mapping populations is critical to successful linkage map construction. Consideration must be given to the source of parents (adapted vs unadapted/exotic), and even related species may be used as parents. This chapter deals with the development and the relevant characteristics of the different types of mapping populations used for linkage mapping, including F 2, F 2-derived F 3 (F 2:F 3), backcross inbred lines (BILs), doubled haploids (DHs), recombinant inbred lines (RILs), near-isogenic lines (NILs), chromosomal segment substitution lines (CSSLs), multi-parent advanced generation intercross (MAGIC), nested association mapping (NAM), etc. In addition, the issues of segregation ratios in different mapping populations, the size of mapping population, etc. are also discussed.


Mapping Population Double Haploid Recombinant Inbred Line Segregation Distortion Double Haploid Population 
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.


  1. Allard RW (1960) Principles of plant breeding. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpert KB, Tanksley SD (1996) High-resolution mapping and isolation of a yeast artificial chromosome contig containing fw2.2: a major fruit weight quantitative trait locus in tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:15503–15507PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Areshchenkova T, Ganal MW (2002) Comparative analysis of polymorphism and chromosomal location of tomato microsatellite markers isolated from different sources. Theor Appl Genet 104:229–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashikari M, Sakakibara H, Lin S et al (2005) Cytokinin oxidase regulates rice grain production. Science 309:741–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardo R (2008) Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: learning from the last twenty years. Crop Sci 48:1649–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns MJ, Barnes SR, Bowman JG et al (2003) QTL analysis of an intervarietal set of substitution lines of Brassica napus: (i) Seed oil content and fatty acid composition. Heredity 90:39–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burr B, Burr FA (1991) Recombinant inbreds for molecular mapping in maize: theoretical and practical considerations. Trends Genet 7:55–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burr B, Burr FA, Thompson KH et al (1988) Gene mapping with recombinant inbreds in maize. Genetics 118:519–526PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavanagh C, Morell M, Mackay I et al (2008) From mutations to MAGIC: resources for gene discovery, validation and delivery in crop plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11:215–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darvasi A, Soller M (1995) Advanced intercross lines, an experimental population for fine gene mapping. Genetics 141:1199–1207PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards MD, Stuber CW, Wendel JF (1987) Molecular-marker-facilitated investigations of quantitative trait loci in maize. I. Numbers, genomic distribution and types of gene action. Genetics 116:113–125PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eshed Y, Zamir D (1994) A genomic library of Lycopersicon pennellii in L. esculentum: a tool for fine mapping of genes. Euphytica 79:175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eshed Y, Zamir D (1995) An introgression line population of Lycopersicon pennellii in the cultivated tomato enables the identification and fine mapping of yield-associated QTL. Genetics 141:1147–1162PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardiner JM, Coe EH, Melia-Hancock S et al (1993) Development of a core RFLP map in maize using an immortalized F 2 population. Genetics 154:917–930Google Scholar
  15. Gebhardt C, Ritter E, Debener T et al (1989) RFLP mapping and linkage analysis in Solanum tuberosum. Theor Appl Genet 78:65–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gebhardt C, Ritter E, Barone A et al (1991) RFLP maps of potato and their alignment with the homoeologous tomato genome. Theor Appl Genet 83:49–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiger HH, Gordillo GA (2009) Doubled haploids in hybrid maize breeding. Maydica 54:485–499Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert DG (1985a) Estimating single gene effects on quantitative traits. 1. A diallel method applied to Est6 in D. melanogaster. Theor Appl Genet 69:625–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert DG (1985b) Estimating single gene effects on quantitative traits. 2. Statistical properties of five experimental methods. Theor Appl Genet 69:631–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haldane JBS, Waddington C (1931) Inbreeding and linkage. Genetics 16:357–374PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hua J, Xing Y, Xu C (2002) Genetic dissection of an elite rice hybrid revealed that heterozygotes are not always advantageous for performance. Genetics 162:1885–1895PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hua J, Xing Y, Wu W et al (2003) Single locus heterotic effects and dominance-by-dominance interactions can adequately explain the genetic basis of heterosis in an elite rice hybrid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:2574–2579PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jannink J-L, Jansen RC (2001) Mapping epistatic quantitative trait loci with one-dimensional genome searches. Genetics 157:445–454PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jourjon M-F, Jasson S, Marcel J et al (2005) MCQTL: multi-allelic QTL mapping in multi-cross design. Bioinformatics 21:128–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koornneef M, Vanderveen HJ (1983) A marker line that allows the detection of linkage on all Arabidopsis chromosomes. Genetica 61:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kover PX, Valdar W, Trakalo J et al (2009) A multiparent advanced generation inter-cross to fine-map quantitative traits in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet 5:e1000551PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li H, Bradbury P, Ersoz E et al (2011a) Joint QTL linkage mapping for multiple-cross mating design sharing one common parent. PLoS ONE 6:e17573. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017573 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lister C, Dean C (1993) Recombinant inbred lines for mapping RFLP and phenotypic markers in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 4:745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luo ZW, Wu C-I, Kearsey MJ (2002) Precision and high-resolution mapping of quantitative trait loci by use of recurrent selection, backcross or intercross schemes. Genetics 161:915–929PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Luo ZW, Zhang RM, Kearsey MJ (2004) Theoretical basis for genetic linkage analysis in autotetraploid species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:7040–7045PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyttle TW (1991) Segregation distorters. Annu Rev Genet 25:511–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mackay L, Powell W (2007) Methods for linkage disequilibrium mapping in crops. Trends Plant Sci 12:57–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller JC, Tanksley SD (1990) RFLP analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in the genus Lycopersicon. Theor Appl Genet 80:437–448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Muehlbauer GJ, Specht JE, Thomas-Compton MA et al (1988) Near isogenic lines – a potential resource in the integration of conventional and marker linkage maps. Crop Sci 28:729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peleman JD, Sorensen AP, van der Voort JR (2005) Breeding by design: exploiting genetic maps and molecular markers through marker-assisted selection. In: Meksem K, Kahl G (eds) The handbook of plant genome mapping. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA, Weinheim, pp 109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pumphrey MO, Bernardo R, Anderson JA (2007) Validating the Fhb1 QTL for Fusarium head blight resistance in near-isogenic wheat lines developed from breeding populations. Crop Sci 47:200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sato T, Ueda T, Fukuta Y et al (2003) Mapping of quantitative trait loci associated with ultraviolet resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L). Theor Appl Genet 107:1003–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scarcelli N, Cheverud JM, Schaal BA et al (2007) Antagonistic pleiotropic effects reduce the potential adaptive value of the FRIGIDA locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:16986–16991PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schneider K (2005) Mapping populations and principles of genetic mapping. In: Meksem K, Kahl G (eds) The handbook of plant genome mapping, genetic and physical mapping. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA, Weinheim, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  40. Silver J (1985) Confidence limits for estimates of gene linkage based on analysis of recombinant inbred strains. J Hered 76:436–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Simpson SP (1989) Detection of linkage between quantitative trait loci and restriction fragment length polymorphisms using inbred lines. Theor Appl Genet 77:815–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh BD (2012a) Plant breeding, principles and methods, 9th edn. Kalyani Publishers, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  43. Sorrells ME (1992) Development and application of RFLPs in polyploids. Crop Sci 32:1086–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tanksley SD, Nelson JC (1996) Advanced backcross QTL analysis: a method for the simultaneous discovery and transfer of valuable QTLs from unadapted germplasm into elite breeding lines. Theor Appl Genet 92:191–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tuinstra MR, Ejeta G, Goldsbrough PB (1997) Heterogeneous inbred family (HIF) analysis: a method for developing near-isogenic lines that differ at quantitative trait loci. Theor Appl Genet 95:1005–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verhoeven KJF, Jannink J-L, McIntyre LM (2006) Using mating designs to uncover QTL and genetic architecture of complex traits. Heredity 96:139–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wright S (1952) Quantitative genetics. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu KK, Burnquist W, Sorrells ME et al (1992) The detection and estimation of linkage in polyploids using single-dose restriction fragments. Theor Appl Genet 83:294–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xi ZY, He FH, Zeng RZ et al (2006) Development of a wide population of chromosome single-segment substitution lines in the genetic background of an elite cultivar of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Genome 49:476–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu Y, Zhu L, Xiao J et al (1997) Chromosomal regions associated with segregation distortion of molecular markers in F 2, backcross, doubled haploid and recombinant inbred populations in rice (Oryza sativa L). Mol Gen Genet 253:535–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu J, Zhao Q, Du P et al (2010) Developing high throughput genotyped chromosome segment substitution lines based on population whole genome resequencing in rice (Oryza sativa L.). BMC Genomics 11:656–669PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Young ND, Zamir D, Ganal MW et al (1988) Use of isogenic lines and simultaneous probing to identify DNA markers tightly linked to the Tm-2a gene in tomato. Genetics 120:579–585PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Yu SB, Li JX, Xu GC et al (1997) Importance of epistasis as the genetic basis of heterosis in an elite rice hybrid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:9226–9231PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yu J, Holland JB, McMullen MD et al (2008) Genetic design and statistical power of nested association. Genetics 178:539–551PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zamir D (2001) Improving plant breeding with exotic genetic libraries. Nature Rev Genet 2:983–989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zamir D, Tadmar Y (1986) Unequal segregation of nuclear genes in plants. Bot Gaz 147:355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lefebvre V, Palloix A, Caranata C et al (1995) Construction of an intraspecific linkage map of pepper using molecular markers and doubled-haploid progenies. Genome 38:112–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Johannes F, Porcher E, Teixeira FK et al (2009) Assessing the impact of transgenerational epigenetic variation on complex traits. PLoS Genet 5:e1000530Google Scholar
  59. Khanna A, Sharma V, Ellur RK et al (2015) Development and evaluation of near-isogenic lines for major blast resistance gene(s) in Basmati rice. Theor Appl Genet. doi: 10.1007/s00122-015-2502-4.
  60. Huang BE, Verbyla KL, Verbyla AP et al (2015) MAGIC populations in crops: current status and future prospects. Theor Appl Genet. doi: 10.1007/s00122-015-2506-0
  61. Bandillo N, Raghavan C, Muyco PA et al (2013) Multi-parent advanced generation inter-cross (MAGIC) populations in rice: progress and potential for genetics research and breeding. Rice 6:11, http://www.thericejournal.com/content/6/1/11

Copyright information

© Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. D. Singh
    • 1
  • A. K. Singh
    • 2
  1. 1.School of BiotechnologyBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  2. 2.Division of GeneticsIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations