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

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

Model^a	DF^b	AIC^c	BIC^c	LL	Model comparsions	LRT^d	P^e
A: T_ijkl = S_k + C_i + C_i² + P_j + P_j² + C_iP_j + R_l	9	− 1059.0	− 1017.3	538.48
B: T_ijkl = C_i + C_i² + S_k (P_j + P_j²) + C_iP_j + R_l	11	− 1057.7	− 1006.8	539.85	A. v. B	2.73	0.256
C: T_ijkl = S_k (C_i + C_i²) + P_j + P_j² + C_iP_j + R_l	11	− 1066.7	− 1015.8	544.34	A. v. C	11.71	0.006
D: T_ijkl = S_k (C_i + C_i² + P_j + P_j² + C_iP_j) + R_l	14	− 1067.7	− 1002.9	547.85	C. v. D	7.03	0.071

^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
^bEstimated degrees of freedom for each model
^cAIC, BIC, log-likelihood (LL) calculated using ML fit
^dLikelihood ratio test (LRT) statistic is for model comparisons
^eP-value for LRT is calculated by parametric bootstrapping using ML fit. Significant P-values are shown in bold

ISSN: 2041-9139