(∆L
A, ∆L
D) | 0.01 indels/site | 0.04 indels/site | 0.1 indels/site | 0.2 indels/site |
---|
(1, 1) |
0.003
|
0.010
|
0.024
|
0.045
|
(3, 1) |
0.021
|
0.084
|
0.204
|
0.393
|
(3, 3) |
0.042
|
0.166
|
0.402
| 0.768 |
(5, 5) |
0.073
|
0.283
| 0.672 | 1.256 |
(10, 1) |
0.064
|
0.246
| 0.572 | 1.013 |
(10, 10) |
0.149
| 0.561 | 1.292 | 2.288 |
(25, 1) |
0.151
| 0.547 | 1.112 | 1.541 |
(25, 4) |
0.198
| 0.723 | 1.519 | 2.234 |
(30, 10) |
0.288
| 1.038 | 2.164 | 3.072 |
(100, 1) | 0.537 | 1.333 | 1.507 | 1.574 |
(100, 3) | 0.607 | 1.593 | 1.894 | 2.033 |
(300, 1) | 1.165 | 1.394 | 1.427 | 1.527 |
- Each cell shows the ratio of the total next-parsimonious contribution to the total parsimonious contribution, when there are ∆L
A ancestral sites and ∆L
D descendant sites in between the PASs. Each column is labeled with the expected number of indels per site ((λ
I
 + λ
D
)(t
F
 − t
I
)). See section M1 of Methods for the parameter setting. Because of the symmetry between probabilities under the time reversal, the ratio for (ΔL
A, ΔL
D) = (L
1, L
2) is identical to that for (ΔL
A, ΔL
D) = (L
2, L
1) when λ
I
 = λ
D
. Thus we only showed the results for ΔL
A ≥ ΔL
D. The ratios that are less than 0.5 are shown in boldface. This table is identical to Table 2 of [43]