TABLE 5

Comparison between predicted and simulated genetic parameters for the neutral model

tE[M]ME[VA]VAE[VB]VB
k = 1200.815(0.002)0.815(0.002)0.023(0.000)0.024(0.000)0.035(0.002)0.033(0.002)
500.713(0.003)0.713(0.003)0.050(0.001)0.050(0.001)0.260(0.014)0.231(0.012)
1000.613(0.004)0.613(0.004)0.051(0.001)0.051(0.001)0797(0.041)0.678(0.036)
k = 2200.818(0.002)0.819(0.002)0.023(0.000)0.023(0.000)0.037(0.002)0.033(0.002)
500.718(0.003)0.719(0.003)0.050(0.001)0.050(0.001)0.271(0.017)0.231(0.015)
1000.619(0.004)0.622(0.004)0.051(0.001)0.051(0.001)0.830(0.051)0.716(0.042)
k = 4200.816(0.001)0.815(0.001)0.024(0.000)0.024(0.000)0.042(0.003)0.039(0.003)
500.712(0.001)0.713(0.001)0.053(0.001)0.053(0.001)0.320(0.022)0.287(0.020)
1000.610(0.002)0.614(0.002)0.058(0.001)0.058(0.001)1.028(0.066)0.833(0.055)
  • Comparison is shown of values predicted by the neutral analytical model for the mean E(M), additive variance E(VA), and between-line variance E(VB) after t consecutive bottlenecks of size N = 50 and those obtained by simulation (M, VA, and VB) in the D scenario (model I), for different types of gene action (k = 1, no epistasis; k = 2, moderate synergistic epistasis; k = 4, strong synergistic epistasis). Standard errors are in parentheses.