. 2015 Feb 14;16(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1291-0

Table 3.

Selective pressures of TNLs among five Rosaceae species

Family no.	Ka / Ks ^a	ω ^b	2Δln	Family no.	Ka / Ks ^a	ω ^b	2Δln
*F. vesca*				*P. bretschneideri*
0	0.65	0.64	178.25^**	28	0.69	0.65	127.83^**
*M. domestica*				29	0.49	0.55	26.94^**
0	0.71	0.72	130.72^**	32	0.74	0.82	86.53^**
1	0.78	0.80	169.72^**	37	0.88	0.92	34.57^**
3	0.61	0.64	77.86^**	39	0.73	0.55	70.55^**
4	0.70	0.70	34.50^**	*P. persica*
7	0.70	0.79	39.21^**	1	0.61	0.58	46.66^**
9	0.88	1.15	269.70^**	2	0.78	0.69	200.14^**
10	0.71	0.65	127.61^**	3	0.54	0.53	87.14^**
13	0.53	0.65	151.63^**	5	0.51	0.47	22.47^**
14	0.88	0.67	275.29^**	6	0.56	0.54	12.24^**
15	0.77	0.68	263.14^**	7	0.87	0.95	404.73^**
16	0.78	0.87	289.13^**	8	0.87	0.82	173.19^**
23	0.97	1.06	177.42^**	9	0.81	0.81	132.38^**
24	0.60	0.61	27.06^**	11	0.66	0.59	186.11^**
25	0.74	0.70	155.33^**	12	0.83	0.65	92.60^**
*P. bretschneideri*				14	0.78	0.73	60.48^**
2	0.54	0.57	292.28^**	16	0.84	0.82	49.62^**
3	0.69	0.75	169.17^**	*P. mume*
4	0.65	0.76	143.59^**	0	1.15	1.31	257.80^**
6	0.72	0.74	6.79^*	2	0.89	1.03	333.07^**
7	0.80	0.86	108.95^**	4	0.52	0.58	18.40^**
10	0.65	0.69	127.79^**	6	0.80	0.81	173.58^**
11	0.88	0.93	161.28^**	8	0.97	1.02	125.15^**
14	0.65	0.67	125.28^**	10	0.60	0.51	30.89^**
16	0.92	0.92	259.19^**	11	0.56	0.54	132.21^**
17	0.78	0.88	35.67^**	12	0.89	0.94	344.19^**
19	0.86	0.99	142.46^**	14	0.92	0.94	313.67^**
21	1.08	1.25	130.03^**	16	0.75	0.71	99.29^**
22	0.69	0.65	196.90^**	19	0.79	0.77	49.99^**
25	0.56	0.47	51.69^**	20	0.89	0.92	127.40^**
26	0.64	0.60	62.54^**

^aAverage Ka/Ks ratio of each gene family calculated by MEGA; ^b dN/dS ratio for each gene family using branch model; 2Δln represents the result of LR test for site model; ^* and ^** represent significant (2Δln > 5.991, p < 0.05) and highly significant (2Δln > 9.210, p < 0.01) tests for positive selection between model M7 and M8.