Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(19)
The fourth S0 progeny of cross 13P020E with predicted breeding value −1.6 was selected for crossing when the selection proportion was 25%.
Having corrected for these two factors, the observed response can be seen to be equivalent to a selection proportion of ∼0.87 − in good agreement with the calculation above.
Figure 3 shows that whenever selection was practiced, i.e. p<1.0, the simulated response to selection indicated a greater response using EBV than phenotypic hip scores for every selection proportion, with the increment becoming larger as selection became more intense.
The predicted responses in Figure 3 were used to provide a further estimate of the equivalent selection proportion being applied against hip dysplasia in the UK Labrador Retriever population.
However, the selection proportion of EIPP features (15.83%) is almost one and half times as many as the selection proportion of CT features (11.11%).
The forecasted response to selection was 11.2% in the next cycle with 20% S0 selection proportion.
Similar(41)
Additionally, selection proportions were also calculated for each round.
[It is also possible to optimize the selection proportions by adding them to the list of parameters to be optimised, effectively giving an optimised multistage selection scheme].
Similarly, experiments with weaker selection (greater proportion selected each generation) over a longer period of time will have greater power than shorter experiments with strong selection.
An extrapolation of results for different proportions of selected applicants (no selection at all, proportions of ¾, of ½, and of ¼) gave following results: The expected success rate increases from 70.1% to values between 74.1% and 85.5%, depending on the selected proportion and the specific predictor used (Table 4).
Parameter description : ω – dN/dS per all sites; ω1 – estimated value of ω for sites under positive selection, p0 – proportion of sites with ω ≤ 1 ; proportionrtiof of sites with ω > 1.
More suggestions(15)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com