TABLE 4

Additional analyses for additive Mendelian QTL

Simulation detailsImprinting inferred
No. males/females F1QTL effecta (frequency)PowerbMaternalPaternal
Mend.Mat.Pat.FMend c Fred d BotheFMend c Fred d Bothe
20/1600.50 (1.0/0.0)1.01.01.00.060.000.000.060.000.00
0.25 (1.0/0.0)0.990.900.910.070.120.040.050.120.04
0.15 (1.0/0.0)0.670.490.450.080.320.080.060.250.05
0.50 (0.8/0.2)0.990.940.900.100.100.050.070.060.02
0.25 (0.8/0.2)0.660.470.470.080.260.070.070.260.07
5/800.75 (0.8/0.2)0.970.840.830.200.180.110.150.050.03
0.50 (0.8/0.2)0.870.740.680.120.260.100.100.200.07
0.25 (0.8/0.2)0.410.270.300.060.210.060.060.230.06

QTL were simulated under a Mendelian model and analyzed under Mendelian (Mend.) and imprinting [maternal/paternal (Mat./Pat.)] models for 800 (20/160) and 400 (5/80) F2 animals with different QTL effects and allele frequencies.

  • a Additive QTL (frequency of positive QTL allele in F0).

  • b Proportion of replicates significant at the 5% chromosome-wide level against the H0 of no QTL.

  • c Proportion of replicates significant at the 5% chromosome-wide level, for which a full model explains significantly more variance (P < 0.05) than a Mendelian QTL at the position of the best QTL under the respective model.

  • d Proportion of replicates significant at the 5% chromosome-wide level, for which a full model does not explain significantly more variance (P < 0.05) than a QTL with a single parental effect at the position of the best imprinted QTL.

  • e Proportion of replicates where both tests of full vs. Mendelian (FMend) and reduced vs. full (Fred) indicate imprinting.