Skip to main content
. 2011 Jul 5;43(1):26. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-43-26

Table 4.

Increase in accuracy comparing MT to ST models for trait 2

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

11 2 3 4 1 2 2 3 4
Model rg 1&22 1&2 no no 1&2 2 no no no
0.25 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00
A 0.54 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.10 0.03 0.01
0.75 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.20 0.06 0.04

0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01
G 0.54 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.03
0.75 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.07

0.25 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01
BCπ0 0.54 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.05
0.75 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.08 0.09

BSSVS 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.04
0.54 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.01 -0.02 0.06 0.03 0.04
0.75 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.10

Differences are for scenarios 1 and 2 across generations and different values of the genetic correlation (rg) between both traits

1Generations 1, 2, 3 and 4; 2animals with phenotypes for: both traits (1&2), only trait 2 (2) or neither of the traits (no)