Table 1.
Comparison of predicted and simulated exclusion power Pu of idealized and real marker sets
| |
Exclusion power Pu |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of markers | Size of factorial design (Nf x Nm) | Alleles/ locusa | Number of loci | Predicted (Eq.2)* | Simulated | Predicted (Eq.7)** |
| Idealized markers (equally frequent alleles) |
10x10 |
5 |
3 |
0.3064 |
0.2123 |
0.1104 |
| |
10x10 |
5 |
6 |
0.9861 |
0.9163 |
0.9131 |
| |
10x10 |
5 |
9 |
0.9998 |
0.9947 |
0.9946 |
| |
10x10 |
5 |
12 |
1.0000 |
0.9997 |
0.9996 |
| |
10x10 |
10 |
3 |
0.9690 |
0.8448 |
0.8334 |
| |
10x10 |
10 |
6 |
1.0000 |
0.9987 |
0.9986 |
| |
20x20 |
5 |
3 |
0.0085 |
0.0321 |
0.0001 |
| |
20x20 |
5 |
6 |
0.9453 |
0.8143 |
0.8037 |
| |
20x20 |
5 |
9 |
0.9993 |
0.9884 |
0.9884 |
| |
20x20 |
5 |
12 |
1.0000 |
0.9993 |
0.9993 |
| |
20x20 |
10 |
3 |
0.8810 |
0.6717 |
0.6409 |
| |
20x20 |
10 |
6 |
1.0000 |
0.9972 |
0.9971 |
| Real microsatellites |
76x13 |
20.1 |
8 |
1.0000 |
0.9994 |
0.9993 |
| |
75x26 |
21.7 |
6 |
0.9999 |
0.9934 |
0.9934 |
| |
41x8 |
19.3 |
6 |
0.9999 |
0.9928 |
0.9920 |
| |
20x2 |
16.3 |
4 |
0.9986 |
0.9465 |
0.9421 |
| |
147x8 |
7.5 |
8 |
0.9911 |
0.8604 |
0.8636 |
| |
96x8 |
7.6 |
8 |
0.9975 |
0.9473 |
0.9422 |
| |
24x10 |
7.8 |
8 |
0.9990 |
0.9712 |
0.9782 |
| 100x101 | 7.5 | 12 | 0.9968 | 0.9708 | 0.9696 | |
Predicted and simulated values from Villanueva et al. [4] for idealized marker sets and from Vandeputte et al. [6] for real marker sets; simulated values were obtained for 800 offspring per cross in [4] and 1000 offspring per cross in 100 independent parent samples in [6]; both used *formula (2) to calculate predicted values, which were compared to the values obtained with **formula (7) described here; afor real loci, average number of alleles per locus.