Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19263167›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2009

How reliable is the analysis of complex cuticular hydrocarbon profiles by multivariate statistical methods?

Stephen J Martin, Falko P Drijfhout

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A review of ant cuticular hydrocarbons.Journal of chemical ecology · 2009
    Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen J MartinDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S102TN, UK. s.j.martin@sheffield.ac.uk
Falko P Drijfhout
Keele University · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous recent studies have correlated cuticular hydrocarbon profiles with a wide range of behaviors, particularly in social insects. These findings are wholly or partly based on multivariate statistical methods such as discriminate analysis (DA) or principal component analysis (PCA). However, these methods often provide limited insight into the biological processes that generate the small differences usually detected. This may be a consequence of variability in the system due to inadequate sample sizes and the assumption that all compounds are independent. A fundamental problem is that these methods combine rather than separate the effects of signal components. By using cuticular hydrocarbon data from previous social insect studies, we showed that: (1) in 13 species of Formica ants and seven species of Vespa hornets, at least one group of hydrocarbons in each species was highly (r(2) > 0.8) correlated, indicating that all compounds are not independent; (2) DA was better at group separation that PCA; (3) the relationships between colonies (chemical distance) were unstable and sensitive to variability in the system; and (4) minor compounds had a disproportionately large effect on the analysis. All these factors, along with sample size, need to be considered in the future analysis of complex chemical profiles.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntsDiscriminant AnalysisHydrocarbonsMultivariate AnalysisPrincipal Component AnalysisHydrocarbons

Identifiers

PMID19263167
OpenAlexW2066411239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.