. 2012 Nov 9;7(11):e48588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048588

Table 1. Comparison of the decay of r² with distance and recombination rate as estimated by different methods.

Parameter	True r²	Direct observation r²	Approx. maximum likelihood r²
Intercept	0.662±0.008 (82.51)	0.654±0.009 (75.729)	0.609±0.007 (87.97)
log(distance)	−0.0757±0.0007 (−104.4)	−0.0604±0.0008 (−77.37)	−0.0729±0.0006 (−116.6)
recombination rate	−0.022±0.0012 (−18.07)	−0.018±0.0013 (−13.63)	−0.017±0.001 (−16.52)
log(dist) x rec. rate	0.00609±0.0007 (8.50)	0.00661±0.0008 (8.575)	0.00626±0.0006 (10.14)

Results from a regression model that examines the how r² decays as a function of physical distance (bp) and recombination rate (cm/Mb) and their interaction. Recombination rates were estimated from Fiston-Lavier et al. (2010) [33]. Values represent parameter estimates ± standard error and t statistics (in parentheses).

Table 1. Comparison of the decay of r2 with distance and recombination rate as estimated by different methods.

Table 1. Comparison of the decay of r² with distance and recombination rate as estimated by different methods.