SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
men12193-sup-0001-DataS1-FigS1-S22.pdfapplication/PDF1298K

Data S1. Supporting information for “Evaluating the role of inbreeding depression in heterozygosity-fitness correlations: how useful is identity disequilibrium?”

Fig. S1. Multiple-locus heterozygosity [scaled to the heterozygosity of non-inbred individuals (H0)] measured at 5000 microsatellite loci plotted against F.

Fig. S2. The pedigree inbreeding coefficient (FP) vs. time in generations.

Fig. S3. The fraction of the genome that is identical by descent (F) vs. the pedigree inbreeding coefficient FP.

Fig. S4. The proportion of significant tests for g2 (open circles) and for HFC (closed circles) vs. σ2(F) for simulations with random mating, six diploid lethal equivalents.

Fig. S5. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variance in HS explained by F (r2(HS, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with random mating, six lethal equivalents.

Fig. S6. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variation in survival explained by F (r2 survival, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with random mating, six lethal equivalents.

Fig. S7. The proportion of significant tests for g2 (open circles) and for HFC (closed circles) vs. σ2(F) for simulations with random mating, 12 diploid lethal equivalents.

Fig. S8. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variance in HS explained by F (r2(HS, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with random mating, 12 lethal equivalents.

Fig. S9. Barplot of the proporion of simulations with significant HFCs that were also significant for g2 with 95% confidence intervals for simulations with random mating, 12 lethal equivalents.

Fig. S10. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variation in survival explained by F(r2 (survival, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with random mating, 12 lethal equivalents.

Fig. S11. The proportion of significant tests for g2 (open circles) and for HFC (closed circles) vs. σ2(F) for simulations with partial selfing and six diploid lethal equivalents.

Fig. S12. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variance in HS explained by F (r2(HS, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with partial selfing and six lethal equivalents.

Fig. S13. Barplot of the proporion of simulations with significant HFCs that were also significant for g2 with 95% confidence intervals for simulations with partial selfing and six lethal equivalents.

Fig. S14. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variation in survival explained by F(r2 (survival, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with partial selfing and six lethal equivalents.

Fig. S15. The proportion of significant tests for g2 (open circles) and for HFC (closed circles) vs. σ2(F) for simulations with partial selfing and 12 diploid lethal equivalents.

Fig. S16. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variance in HS explained by F (r2(HS, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with partial selfing and 12 diploid lethal equivalents.

Fig. S17. Barplot of the proporion of simulations with significant HFCs that were also significant for g2 with 95% confidence intervals for simulations with partial selfing and 12 lethal equivalents.

Fig. S18. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variation in survival explained by F(r2 (survival, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with partial selfing and 12 lethal equivalents.

Fig. S19. The proportion of significant tests for g2 (open circles) and for HFC (closed circles) vs. σ2(F) for simulations with random mating, six diploid lethal equivalents and 1000 cM genomes with 10 chromosomes.

Fig. S20. The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variance in HS explained by F (r2(HS, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with random mating, six lethal equivalents and 1000 cM genomes with 10 chromosomes.

Fig. S21. The proportion of statistically significant HFCs that also had statistically significant tests for identity disequilibrium for simulations with random mating, six lethal equivalents and 1000 cM genomes with 10 chromosomes.

Fig. S22 The true (open circles) and estimated (closed circles) proportion of variation in survival explained by F(r2 (survival, F) and inline image) vs. the variance of F (σ2(F)) for simulations with random mating, six lethal equivalents and 1000 cM genomes with 10 chromosomes.

men12193-sup-0002-Supplementarymaterial.pdfapplication/PDF1022K 

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.