Table 3.
Simulation of Process S assuming a linear buildup rate
| τi (%/hr) | τd(hr) | DIF2 | r | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK | 27.1 (2.0) | 2.1 (0.2) | 386 (48) | 0.92 |
| C | 18.8 (2.2) | 1.8 (0.2) | 273 (57) | 0.90 |
| B6 | 15.0 (1.3) | 2.2 (0.1) | 221 (31) | 0.90 |
| Br | 21.1 (2.9) | 1.6 (0.2) | 412 (99) | 0.92 |
| D2 | 10.5 (0.9) | 2.1 (0.3) | 326 (97) | 0.86 |
| 129 | 18.9 (2.0) | 1.7 (0.1) | 336 (66) | 0.88 |
| p | <0.0001 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
The simulation of Process S was repeated with the assumption of a linear buildup. The decrease still followed an exponential decline with the same lower asymptotes (Table 1). Significant genotype differences were observed for the buildup rate [τi; mean (SEM); Tukey's range test: AK = Br > Br = 129 = C = B6 > C = B6 = D2; p < 0.05; n = 7 per strain]. The minimum square of the differences (DIF2) did not differ between the two approaches (two-way ANOVA with repeated measures: factor linear vs exponential: p = 0.3; factor strain: p = 0.3; interaction: p = 0.9; n = 7 per strain). The average difference in DIF2was 27 ± 22 %2 (linear − exponential; n = 42). p values underneath each column indicate results from a one-way ANOVA with factor strain.