Table 1.
Outcome of the regression model showing the effect of chromosome size on kinetochore size
| Analysis based on | Model term | b i | 95% CI | t | P | R 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2D microscopy | Intercept | –1.062 | –1.133, –0.994 | –32.034 | 0 | 83.04 |
| Chromosome size | 0.277 | 0.263, 0.291 | 39.593 | 0 | ||
| 3D-SIM | Intercept | –0.903 | –0.983, –0.820 | –22.272 | 0 | 51.47 |
| Chromosome size | 0.247 | 0.186, 0.309 | 7.880 | 0 |
To test the relationship between kinetochore and genome size, we applied a linear mixed model. We set the kinetochore size as the response variable and chromosome size as the explanatory variable. To account for random variation caused by differences between different metaphases, slides, plants and species, we used these variables as nested random effects as follows: metaphases nested within slides nested within plants nested within species.
b i, parameters estimates; 95% CI, lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval of the parameter estimate; t, t statistics; P, significance of the estimate difference from zero; R2, conditional R-squared that indicates the percentage of explained variance in kinetochore size by the chromosome size after accounting for random effects (i.e. the differences between metaphases, slides and species) used in the linear mixed model.