↓ Skip to main content

The use of model selection in the model-free analysis of protein dynamics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomolecular NMR, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
The use of model selection in the model-free analysis of protein dynamics
Published in
Journal of Biomolecular NMR, January 2003
DOI 10.1023/a:1021902006114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward J. d'Auvergne, Paul R. Gooley

Abstract

Model-free analysis of NMR relaxation data, which is widely used for the study of protein dynamics, consists of the separation of the global rotational diffusion from internal motions relative to the diffusion frame and the description of these internal motions by amplitude and timescale. Five model-free models exist, each of which describes a different type of motion. Model-free analysis requires the selection of the model which best describes the dynamics of the NH bond. It will be demonstrated that the model selection technique currently used has two significant flaws, under-fitting, and not selecting a model when one ought to be selected. Under-fitting breaks the principle of parsimony causing bias in the final model-free results, visible as an overestimation of S2 and an underestimation of taue and Rex. As a consequence the protein falsely appears to be more rigid than it actually is. Model selection has been extensively developed in other fields. The techniques known as Akaike's Information Criteria (AIC), small sample size corrected AIC (AICc), Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), bootstrap methods, and cross-validation will be compared to the currently used technique. To analyse the variety of techniques, synthetic noisy data covering all model-free motions was created. The data consists of two types of three-dimensional grid, the Rex grids covering single motions with chemical exchange [S2,taue,Rex], and the Double Motion grids covering two internal motions [S f 2,S s 2,tau s ]. The conclusion of the comparison is that for accurate model-free results, AIC model selection is essential. As the method neither under, nor over-fits, AIC is the best tool for applying Occam's razor and has the additional benefits of simplifying and speeding up model-free analysis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 5%
Unknown 81 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 32%
Researcher 18 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Master 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 28 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 19%
Decision Sciences 1 1%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#380
of 561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,886
of 136,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomolecular NMR
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 561 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 136,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.