Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 7;11(4):e1005069. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005069

Table 2. Results of localization procedure with finite coverage.

Distance Rank
s C q .1 q .25 q .5 q .75 q .9 q .1 q .25 q .5 q .75 q .9 𝔼(#SS)
0.02 10 5200 15880 33670 53400 67881 34 195 795 1496 1770 2085
0.02 30 3720 11460 28850 52730 77380 25 308 912 1499 1690 2084
0.02 C^ 5310 12419 28360 48630 60750 17 152 863 1420 1676 2082
0.05 10 0 3170 18380 42240 63170 1 6 304 1161 1635 2080
0.05 30 0 0 14330 38860 57019 1 1 129 1356 1619 2086
0.05 C^ 990 9080 28750 53110 69750 2 4 159 1473 1639 2083
0.10 10 0 0 3770 27300 55960 1 1 5 373 1591 2082
0.10 30 0 0 290 26950 50649 1 1 2 498 1539 2091
0.10 C^ 0 0 14079 37290 58970 1 1 3 493 1583 2082

Data were generated as in Table 1 and then sampled to simulate sequencing. The number of homozygous founder lines was fixed to F = 200 in this study. Average coverage depth is indicated in the column labeled C. The rows denoted “C^” correspond to simulations in which each segregating site had a random level of coverage depth drawn from the empirical coverage distribution observed in actual E&R sequencing data. The column labeled q j corresponds to the jth percentile. The column labeled 𝔼(#SS) shows the average number of segregating sites observed over all simulations. As the table shows, the additional noise introduced by low coverage depth makes the problem of localizing the selected site more challenging. However, under strong selection (s = 0.1), the true selected site was among the top five segregating sites in more than half the trials.