Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24061923›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2014

Principal component analysis: a method for determining the essential dynamics of proteins.

Charles C David, Donald J Jacobs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 468 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
468citing papers in PubMed
22.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

468 citing papers in PubMed, 1,196 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

408 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles C DavidDepartment of Physics and Optical Science, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Donald J Jacobs
University of North Carolina at Charlotte · US

Funding

Predicting protein flexibility and stabilityR01GM073082 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE · PI JACOBS, DONALD · 2006 to 2010
$1.6M
Energy Transduction in MyosinR21HL093531 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE · PI YENGO, CHRISTOPHER M · 2009 to 2010
$390k
NHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL093531NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM073082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has become commonplace to employ principal component analysis to reveal the most important motions in proteins. This method is more commonly known by its acronym, PCA. While most popular molecular dynamics packages inevitably provide PCA tools to analyze protein trajectories, researchers often make inferences of their results without having insight into how to make interpretations, and they are often unaware of limitations and generalizations of such analysis. Here we review best practices for applying standard PCA, describe useful variants, discuss why one may wish to make comparison studies, and describe a set of metrics that make comparisons possible. In practice, one will be forced to make inferences about the essential dynamics of a protein without having the desired amount of samples. Therefore, considerable time is spent on describing how to judge the significance of results, highlighting pitfalls. The topic of PCA is reviewed from the perspective of many practical considerations, and useful recipes are provided.

Indexed as

Molecular Dynamics SimulationAlgorithmsPrincipal Component AnalysisProtein ConformationProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID24061923
PMCPMC4676806
OpenAlexW2292301738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.