Dataset | Z-score H|H | Z-s. |ΔDAF| | Z-s. Fst | Z-s. ΔiHH | Z-s. iHS |
---|
Mangravite 2012 | 22 | 6/NA | NA | 0 | 8 |
Montgomery 2010A | 13 | 3/5 | -4 | 1 | -2 |
Montgomery 2010B | 8 | 2/4 | -3 | 3 | -2 |
Schadt 2007 | 2 | 1/1 | -1 | 1 | 0 |
Stranger 2007 | 8 | -2/4 | -8 | -3 | -2 |
Veyrieras 2008 | 8 | 0/0 | -13 | -3 | -1 |
Zeller 2010 | 19 | 2/7 | -7 | 2 | 0 |
- For each Dataset, the average value of the Z-score across all Models (1-5 from Table 2, rounded to the nearest whole number.) Two averages are given |ΔDAF| - Models 2 and 5 before the slash; Models 1, 3 and 4 after the slash. For H|H, a positive number indicates a positive value is a strong predictor for eQTLs, for the other measures, an extreme negative value indicates that a low log p-value is a strong predictor for eQTLs. ΔiHH and iHS are intended to be measures of positive selection. With the exception of |ΔDAF| (which changes substantially depending on whether Fst is included in the model), these Z-scores do not change greatly among Models 1-6 in Table 2, indicating that these predictors are largely independent.