Skip to main content
. 2013 Sep 30;3(12):2151–2161. doi: 10.1534/g3.113.008276

Table 3. Results obtained by binomial sampling with various recombination fractions.

T L Δta rb Neutral (s0 = 0) Selective (s0 = 0.05)
Binomialc Pseudod Binomialc Pseudod
[Model 1′]e
10 2 5 Free 5.19 5.06 20.45 21.05
0.1 4.66 19.90
0.01 4.97 19.33
0 5.14 19.85
20 5 5 Free 5.00 4.94 36.06 36.48
0.1 4.97 36.05
0.01 4.95 37.08
0 4.84 35.76
[Model 5′]f
5 1 5 Free 5.07 5.01 8.57 8.34
0.1 4.93 8.80
0.01 5.08 8.09
0 5.41 8.13
10 5 2 Free 4.59 4.99 64.32 65.73
0.1 5.27 64.23
0.01 4.80 62.55
0 4.98 63.21

Values indicate the rejection rates (%) obtained by 10,000 simulations for binomial sampling or by 100,000 simulations for pseudo-sampling under a nominal significance level of 5%.

The number of reference were R = 10 The initial frequencies for all R + 1 loci, xh,0, are assumed to be 0.5.

a

Δt=titi1 (i=1,2,,L).

b

r, recombination fraction per generation between two adjacent loci of R + 1 loci. “Free” refers to free recombination.

c

Binomial, the binomial sampling.

d

Pseudo, the pseudo-sampling method used in this study.

e

Model 1′, the constant-size model with N = 100.

f

Model 5′, the severe bottleneck model with N(t) reduced to 1/200 of that in Model 5.