Table 1 Summary of resistance/susceptibility to fire blight QTL analyses in the pedigree-connected apple reference germplasm set representing 27 important breeding parents (IBPs)

Chr.^a	Year	BF_{(1 vs. 0)}^b	BF_{(2 vs. 1)}^c	QTL interval (cM)^d	Mode (cM)^e	Physical position (Mbp)^f	PVE (%)^g
6	2016	11.5	0.7	48–58	53	31.22–36.72	15
6	2017	4.8	−0.2	42–56	49	28.24–35.97	9
7	2016	7.2	2.1	22–32	24	9.11–20.90	10
7	2017	4.0	0.3	22–32	28	9.11–20.90	9
8	2016	5.4	0.9	40–64	52	21.97–30.88	–
8	2017	15.4	3.0	22–40	27	9.42–21.97	–
15	2016	3.8	0.5	56–76	68	19.23–30.29	6
15	2017	5.7	0.7	58–82	72	20.09–37.66	7
16	2016	5.2	1.7	0–12	9	0.02–5.14	–
16	2017	−0.5	−0.7	–	–	–	–

Within a year, adjusted shoot length blighted best linear unbiased predictions (SLB BLUPs) were used as phenotypic values in QTL analyses. Results are shown for a single representative FlexQTL^TM run within each year (all FlexQTL^TM runs presented in Table S1)
^aChromosome
^bChromosome-wise Bayes factor (2lnBF₁₀) for a 1 QTL vs. 0 QTL model, with BF > 2, 5, and 10 indicating positive, strong, or decisive evidence, respectively, for the presence of one QTL
^cChromosome-wise Bayes factor (2lnBF₁₀) for a 2 QTL vs. 1 QTL model, with BF > 2, 5, and 10 indicating positive, strong, or decisive evidence, respectively, for the presence of two QTLs
^dQTL interval defined as the bounds of consecutive 2 cM bins (chromosomal segments used by and reported from FlexQTL™) with 2lnBF₁₀ (BF) > 2
^eMode of QTL interval, representing the most probable QTL position
^fApproximate physical position of QTL interval, from physical positions on GDDH13 v1.1 reference genome (Daccord et al.²¹) of closest flanking SNPs according to Vanderzande et al.³⁶
^gEstimated proportion of phenotypic variance explained by QTL

Search