Mixed model (with interaction) for gene expression and iteration
On 3/06/2009, at 12:53 AM, Paolo Innocenti wrote:
<snip>
Reading a bit of this mailing list, I came up with these three models: m1 <- lmer(Y1 ~ sex + (1|line) + (1|sex:line)) or m2 <- lmer(Y1 ~ sex + (sex|line)) or m3 <- lmer(Y1 ~ sex + (0 + sex|line)) Which should all be the same model (and indeed they have all the same residuals) but different parametrization (see self-contained example below).
<snip> I don't think that the first two models are indeed the same model. My understanding --- which is very limited --- is that lmer(Y1 ~ sex + (1|line) + (1|sex:line)) gives a model in which the effect of line j on sex 1 (say X_1j) and and the effect of line j on sex 2 (say X_2j) are uncorrelated. I.e. X_1j and X_2j have covariance matrix of the form sigma^2 * I, where I is the 2 x 2 identity. Thus one random effect parameter is contributed. In contrast, lmer(Y1 ~ sex + (sex|line)) gives a model in which correlation between X_1j and X_2j, i.e. their covariance matrix is a ``general'' 2 x 2 positive definite matrix. Thus three random effect parameters are contributed. See http://www.nabble.com/lme-nesting-interaction-advice- td17131600i20.html#a17213604 for the posting from Doug Bates upon which I am basing my understanding. Compare: lmer(score ~ Machine + (1|Worker/Machine), Machines) and lmer(score ~ Machine + (Machine|Worker), Machines) with your proposed models. I hope that I have not misinterpreted Prof. Bates' explanation. cheers, Rolf Turner ###################################################################### Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}