Table 3 False positive rate (FPR) and power profiles of mapping an epistatic pair in the core scenariosa

From: Controlling false positives in the mapping of epistatic QTL

 

FPR (%)

Power (%)

 

1D_path

2D_path

2D_path no_QTL b

Final c

1D_path

2D_path

2D_path no_QTL b

Final c

Com2.5%

3.7

1.2

0.5

4.2

15.6

2.7

0.0

15.6

Com5.0%

2.0

1.6

1.3

3.3

69.3

32.2

0.0

69.3

Com7.5%

1.4

0.7

0.4

1.8

99.1

90.0

0.0

99.1

Dup2.5%

2.0

1.5

1.5

3.5

1.8

1.6

1.2

3.0

Dup5.0%

4.4

2.3

2.0

6.4

14.7

21.8

15.5

30.1

Dup7.5%

2.0

1.6

1.6

3.6

46.6

57.7

29.3

75.9

Dom2.5%

3.3

1.0

0.8

4.1

6.6

2.6

1.7

8.3

Dom5.0%

5.7

2.1

2.0

7.7

55.7

19.8

0.7

56.4

Dom7.5%

5.6

2.0

1.7

7.4

90.8

65.2

0.3

91.1

Rec2.5%

3.3

0.7

0.5

3.8

8.7

1.5

0.2

8.8

Rec5.0%

4.1

1.0

0.8

5.0

51.7

23.3

0.0

51.7

Rec7.5%

4.2

0.5

0.4

4.5

89.7

67.5

0.0

89.7

Inh2.5%

5.1

2.4

2.0

7.1

13.8

2.0

0.0

13.8

Inh5.0%

5.3

2.0

1.8

7.2

61.3

24.8

0.0

61.3

Inh7.5%

5.5

1.9

1.6

7.1

92.3

70.9

0.0

92.3

Int2.5%

1.8

0.4

0.4

2.2

0.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

Int5.0%

1.6

2.0

2.0

3.6

0.0

12.4

12.4

12.4

Int7.5%

0.9

2.9

2.7

3.6

0.0

46.8

46.8

46.8

Int10.0%

0.9

1.3

1.3

2.2

0.2

78.5

78.3

78.5

Int12.5%

2.3

2.0

1.8

4.1

0.2

92.8

92.6

92.8

  1. aEach scenario with one non-epistatic QTL and one epistatic pair.
  2. bOmitting regions of 10 cM on either side of the marginal-effect QTL pre-indentified from the 2D_path results.
  3. cCombined results from the 1D_path and those from the 2D_path after omitting regions of 10 cM on either side of the marginal-effect QTL pre-indentified.