TABLE 4

Estimated number of underlying QTL when the distribution of additive effects was not exponential

nNF2ndQTL (θ = amin)QTL [θ from (11)]CWZ (C = 1)
C = 0.5
2050010.32 {7, 14}34.86 {21.16, 50.67}31.44 {18.60, 46.53}26.31 {21.43, 31.28}
Embedded Image Embedded Image [9.0%]
202005.80 {3, 8}49.04 {20.20, 105.53}39.94 {15.99, 85.23}26.25 {18.42, 34.11}
Embedded Image Embedded Image [37.0%]
C = 2.0
205005.16 {2, 8}13.48 {5.50, 29.41}10.97 {4.31, 23.78}10.44 {4.63, 17.27}
Embedded Image Embedded Image [1.7%]
202005.59 {2, 10}17.14 {5.47, 41.57}13.04 {4.55, 30.04}8.77 {5.41, 14.93}
Embedded Image Embedded Image [0.3%]
  • Simulations were run where QTL effects were drawn from a gamma distribution with a coefficient of variation of either 0.5 or 2.0 (see Figure 1). In this table, the analyses assume (incorrectly) that the underlying distribution of QTL effects was exponential (C = 1). See Table 1 for more details.