Skip to main content
Advertisement

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The effects of spores and toxin on mortality in Bacillus thuringiensis.

A) The mortality rates for varying quantities of spores of Bacillus thuringiensis a Cry null strain supplemented with 60 pg of toxin (open circles, dashed line) or 180 pg of toxin (solid circles, solid line). A glm of the form y ~ Toxins + log(Spores+1) + Toxins* log(Spores+1) is fit and shown for both toxin doses (see S2 Table in S1 Text for parameter details) with S.E. shown. In both cases spore dose has a positive impact on mortality, and in the 60 pg case, there is a gap between zero spores and the next lowest dose. B) The mortality rates for 900 Bacillus thuringiensis spores supplemented with varying quantities of toxins (+/- S.E.) in two experiments. The fit curves are from a nonlinear regression with an exponential model (Eq 1). This IAH model is not sufficiently threshold-like to describe the data; it overestimates low dose mortality.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The dose-response for wild type Bacillus thuringiensis (+/- S.E.) in two experiments.

The best IAH model (beta-Poisson) fit from all doses over 20% mortality is also shown. Again dashed line corresponds to the first experiment (with open circles), and solid line corresponds to the second experiment (with solid circles).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The distribution of the differences between predicted mortality and ‘actual’ mortality from best-fit models (fit to all doses over 20% mortality) at low doses in simulated experiments (generated from bootstrapping data from each dose 5,000 times).

The difference between predicted and “actual” low-dose risk when the model is chosen between the best fit exponential and beta-Poisson models based on AIC for experiment 1 focusing on the spore dose of mean 150 (A) and experiment 2 focusing on the spore dose of mean 130.59 (B). The difference between predicted and “actual” low-dose risk when the less commonly used, exact (confluent hypergeometric) form is shown for data in experiment 1 (C) and experiment 2 (D).

More »

Fig 3 Expand