Table 1.

Model fitting and selection results for testing of the IAH and DA models^a

Plant and model	NLLb	AIC	ΔAICc	AWd	Parameter estimate (CI)
					α	β	k	ψ
Wild type
IAH	9.273	24.545	4.557	0.093	6.46 (4.17–10.23) × 10−12	7.08 (4.07–16.22) × 10−2		1 (0.830–1)
DA	5.994	19.989		0.907	1.35 (0.89–2.57) × 10−12	9.54 (4.90–16.98) × 10−2	2.635 (1.912–3.426)	0.937 (0.806–1)
P2
IAH	10.407	26.814	5.609	0.057	1.55 (1.07–2.45) × 10−11	0.204 (0.079–0.372)		0.965 (0.893–1)
DA	6.603	21.206	—	0.943	3.55 (2.40–5.62) × 10−11	0.204 (0.060–0.363)	2.801 (2.067–3.630)	0.996 (0.895–1)
P12
IAH	14.226	34.452	—	0.600	1.20 (0.25–2.04) × 10−10	1e		0.987 (0.922–1)
DA	13.633	35.265	0.814	0.400	7.59 (1.91–25.70) × 10−11	1 (0.977–1)	0.731 (0.521–1.380)	1 (0.926–1)

^aData for each plant type were analyzed separately to determine whether the IAH or DA model is best supported by the data. For wild-type and P2 plants, we expected to reject this model, as three and two particles types, respectively, are required for infection. For the P12 plant, we expected the hypothesis to be supported because only one particle type is required for infection, as the other two are supplied in trans by the plant. Note that each comparison of models is for the same plant type.

^bNLL, negative log likelihood, a measure of model fit.

^cΔAIC, difference between a given model and the best-fitting model.

^dAW, Akaike weight, a measure of the relative support for the model.

^eThe lower and upper 95% CI limits coincide with the estimated parameter value.