Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of including sex as an interactive versus additive term when modeling the influence of diet on body size

From: Sex-specific plasticity and the nutritional geometry of insulin-signaling gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster

Modela

DFb

AICc

BICc

LL

Model comparsions

LRTd

Pe

A: Tijkl = Sk + Ci + Ci2 + Pj + Pj2 + CiPj + Rl

9

− 1059.0

− 1017.3

538.48

   

B: Tijkl = Ci + Ci2 + Sk (Pj + Pj2) + CiPj + Rl

11

− 1057.7

− 1006.8

539.85

A. v. B

2.73

0.256

C: Tijkl = Sk (Ci + Ci2) + Pj + Pj2 + CiPj + Rl

11

− 1066.7

− 1015.8

544.34

A. v. C

11.71

0.006

D: Tijkl = Sk (Ci + Ci2 + Pj + Pj2 + CiPj) + Rl

14

− 1067.7

− 1002.9

547.85

C. v. D

7.03

0.071

  1. aT is the body size, S is sex, C is carbohydrate, P is protein, R is replicate vial (random factor). The models differ by having sex as an interactive versus an additive factor
  2. bEstimated degrees of freedom for each model
  3. cAIC, BIC, log-likelihood (LL) calculated using ML fit
  4. dLikelihood ratio test (LRT) statistic is for model comparisons
  5. eP-value for LRT is calculated by parametric bootstrapping using ML fit. Significant P-values are shown in bold
Back to article page

EvoDevo

ISSN: 2041-9139