With these "uniquely" significant markers, marked variance was then computed according to Eqs. 7 and 8.
Marked variance changed from 1.218 ×10−4 to 1.842 ×10−4 when imprinting was considered in the analysis, implying that one third of marked variance would be lost if existing imprinting effects were not accounted for.
For each combination G (n), the total gene number of all strains (marked as Sum_geneNum) and the variance of gene numbers among those strains (marked as Dev_geneNum) were calculated by two different formulas, shown as follows.
This pattern was marked for gene diversity, HE, variance of allele size, V, or both (Fig. 2).
However, marked additive genetic variance differs from additive genetic variance (e.g., [ 52, 53]).
In GWAS, summation of 2 p q α across all significant markers gives the total marked additive genetic variance under the assumption of linkage equilibrium between markers.
IGE were significantly different from zero for bite marks on all regions of the body and variance of IGE ranged from 0.14 for tail bite marks to 0.27 for body bite marks.
PCA develops the nonlinear mapping in such a way that it maximizes the variance of the data, which helps us in discarding that part of the data which is marked by lesser variances.
Marker effects are assumed independent and identically distributed a priori, whereas the distribution assigned to (the prior variance of marker effects) and (the prior of residual variance) is χ−2 df, s) (for example, de los Campos et al., 2012).
That's quite a variance of opinion.
