Table 5. Comparison of effect sizes for genetic versus intrinsic terms in pathogen resistance.
| Genetic term | Response | Dataset a | Modelb | d.f. | Coefficient | Sex | Body weightc | Eye lens weightc |
| Il1b | Tick infection | CS | Heterozygosity | 1 | 0.91 | 0.35 | 1.11 | −0.74 |
| Bartonella infection | Long. | Heterozygosity | 1 | −0.61 | n.s. | n.s. | 0.32 | |
| Flea infection | Long. | Additive | 4 | −0.25 to 1.27 | 0.72 | −0.04 | n.d. | |
| Il2 | Nematode infection | CS | Additive | 2 | −0.03 to 0.70 | 0.82 | n.s. | n.s. |
| Cestode burden | CS | Heterozygosity | 1 | −0.45 | −1.61 | 0.16 | −0.33 | |
| Flea burden | CS | Heterozygosity | 1 | −0.27 | n.s. | 0.53 | n.s. | |
| Tick infection | Long. | Additive | 2 | −0.66 to 0.21 | n.s. | 0.15 | n.d. | |
| Tick burden | CS | Heterozygosity | 1 | 0.58 | n.s. | 2.68 | n.d. | |
| Babesia infection | Long. | Heterozygosity | 1 | 0.66 | −0.70 | 0.32 | n.d. | |
| Bartonella infection | Long. | Heterozygosity | 1 | −0.61 | −0.22 | −0.47 | n.d. | |
| Il12b | Nematode infection | CS | Additive | 2 | 0.42 to 1.42 | 0.82 | n.s. | n.s. |
| Babesia infection | Long. | Additive | 2 | 0.26 to 1.02 | −0.70 | 0.32 | n.d. | |
| Slc11a1 | Flea burden | CS | Heterozygosity | 1 | −0.28 | n.s. | 0.53 | n.s. |
| Tick burden | CS | Heterozygosity | 1 | 0.67 | n.s. | 2.68 | n.d. | |
| Tlr2 | Cestode burden | CS | Heterozygosity | 1 | 0.37 | −1.61 | 0.16 | −0.33 |
| Tnf | Cestode infection | CS | Additive | 1 | −0.68 | 0.88 | 0.46 | −0.70 |
a
Refers to cross-sectional (CS) or longitudinal (Long.) studies, which utilized GLMs and GLMMS, respectively, for analyses (see text).
b
Under an additive model, the range of effect sizes for alleles is shown compared against the most common haplotype at that locus; under a heterozygosity model, values of heterozygotes were compared against homozygotes (see text).
c
Effect size shown for comparative purposes based on the interquartile range for females within a single season (Spring 2008).