Since the Q value correction for multiple testing is highly conservative in cases where few tests are significant, both the P value and the Q value were used to identify SNPs associated with genetic traits. Nilotinib 641571-10-0 These effects were signifi cant based on both P and Q values. In addition, there were 4 genes exhibiting dominance based on P values, includ ing two in which the allele substitution effect was signifi cant and two in which the allele substitution was not significant. After correcting for multiple testing, none of the domin ance effects achieved significance. None of the dom inant effects remained significant after correcting for mul tiple testing. The only SNPs significant after correcting for multiple testing were allele substitution effects for DEPDC7, LDB3, MS4A8B, PARM1, and TDRKH.

For CCR, there were allele substitution effects for 29 SNPs and domin ance effects for 4 SNPs. All but one of the allele substitu tion Anacetrapib effects were significant after correction for multiple testing, the exception being for ARL6IP1, but none of the dominance effects were significant based on Q values. SNP effects on productive life and net merit For PL, there were allele substitution effects for 33 SNPs and dominance effects for 5 SNPs. After correcting for multiple testing, none of the dominant effects were significant. For NM, there were allele substitution effects for 30 SNPs and dominance effects for 6 SNPs. Except for HSPA1A, the allele substitution effects were signifi cant after correcting for multiple testing, but dominance effects were not significant.

SNP effects on production traits There were fewer effects on production traits compared to fertility traits, which is consistent with the conclusion of Cole et al. that yield traits generally are consist ent with an infinitesimal model, in which the trait is controlled by many alleles of small effect. For MY, there were allele substitution effects for 18 SNPs and domin ance effects for 6 SNPs. Only linear effects of CD14, CPSF1, FAM5C, and PARM1 were significant after correcting for multiple testing. For FY, there were allele substitution effects for 13 SNPs and dominance ef fects for 7 SNPs. Only the linear effects of CPSF1 and PARM1 were significant after correcting for multiple testing. For FPC, there were allele substitution effects for 10 SNPs and dominance effects for 4 SNPs.

After correcting for multiple full read testing, only lin ear effects of CPSF1, DEPDC7, FAM5C, MS4A8B, and SREBF1 were significant. For PY, there were allele substitution effects for 17 SNPs and dominance effects for 4 SNPs. None of the effects were significant after correcting for multiple test ing. For PPC, there were linear effects of 21 SNPs and 1 SNP with a dominance effect. After correcting for multiple testing, only the linear effects of BSP3, CPSF1, FAM5C, FCER1G, FUT1, HSPA1A, MS4A8B, PARM1, and TDRKH were significant. Results for SCS are shown in Table 12.