Skip to main content

Table 2 Pairwise comparison of different models using cis -enrichment and trans -enrichment in yeast

From: Fast and robust group-wise eQTL mapping using sparse graphical models

cis -enrichment   FaST-LMM C of Model 2 MTLasso2G B × A of Model 1 LORS Lasso
  C+B×A of Model 2 0.4351 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
  FaST-LMM - 0.2351 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
  Cof Model 2 - - 0.0221 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
  MTLasso2G - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
  B×Aof Model 1 - - - - <0.0001 <0.0001
  LORS - - - - - 0.0052
trans-enrichment   B×A of Model 2 FaST-LMM MTLasso2G LORS B×A of Model 1 Lasso
  C+B×A of Model 2 0.4245 0.3123 0.0034 0.0029 0.0027 0.0023
  B×A of Model 2 - 0.3213 0.0132 0.0031 0.0028 0.0026
  FaST-LMM - - 0.0148 0.0033 0.0031 0.0029
  MTLasso2G - - - 0.0038 0.0037 0.0032
  LORS - - - - 0.0974 0.0151
  B×Aof Model 1 - - - - - 0.0564
  1. A p-value shows how significant a method on the left column outperforms a method in the top row in terms of cis-enrichment or trans-enrichment.