Table 3.

Simulation of Process S assuming a linear buildup rate

τi (%/hr)τd(hr)DIF2r
AK27.1 (2.0)2.1 (0.2)386 (48)0.92
C18.8 (2.2)1.8 (0.2)273 (57)0.90
B615.0 (1.3)2.2 (0.1)221 (31)0.90
Br21.1 (2.9)1.6 (0.2)412 (99)0.92
D210.5 (0.9)2.1 (0.3)326 (97)0.86
12918.9 (2.0)1.7 (0.1)336 (66)0.88
p<0.00010.20.50.5
  • The simulation of Process S was repeated with the assumption of a linear buildup. The decrease still followed an exponential decline with the same lower asymptotes (Table 1). Significant genotype differences were observed for the buildup rate [τi; mean (SEM); Tukey's range test: AK = Br > Br = 129 = C = B6 > C = B6 = D2; p < 0.05; n = 7 per strain]. The minimum square of the differences (DIF2) did not differ between the two approaches (two-way ANOVA with repeated measures: factor linear vs exponential: p = 0.3; factor strain: p = 0.3; interaction: p = 0.9; n = 7 per strain). The average difference in DIF2was 27 ± 22 %2 (linear − exponential; n = 42). p values underneath each column indicate results from a one-way ANOVA with factor strain.