[gmx-users] Re: Reference structure for PCA.

[vivek modi]

Any comments/help on this query. I am stuck with this.


Thanks,

-Vivek.


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, vivek modi <modi.vivek2009 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have troubled you with a similar question before also, but I guess I
> need some more clarification. My question is about the reference structure
> in PCA analysis.
> I have 100ns long protein simulation which I want to analyze using PCA.
> The RMSD shows fluctuations upto initial 25-30ns and then becomes very
> stable.
> I have performed PCA on the last 30ns window of the simulation where I
> assume the simulation has converged (I also did on other time windows as
> well).
>
> The question is this:
> I did the analysis on the last 30ns window in two ways by taking two
> different reference structures.
>
> a. I take the average structure of the trajectory (0-100ns) as
> the reference and then do the fitting and calculate covariance matrix for
> last 30ns. This is done because I suspect that the average structure over
> full trajectory will reflect all the changes occurring in the protein. It
> also gives me low cosines (<0.1). The PCs show movement occurring in
> certain regions of the protein.
>
> b. I take the average structure from the same window (last 30ns) then do
> the fitting and calculate covariance matrix for the same. This is done with
> an assumption that the reference structure must reflect the
> equilibriated/stable part of the trajectory unlike the previous case.
> Surprisingly it gives me high cosines (>0.5). Unlike the previous case,
> this method shows very small movement in the protein (very low RMSF).
>
> Both of these methods give me different RMSF for the PCs although they are
> done on the same part of the trajectory but the reference structure is
> influencing the output.
>
>  Which protocol among the two is appropriate ?  And how can we explain
> high cosines in second case where the reference structure is the average of
> the same time window (there must not be large deviation) while I get low
> cosine for the first case where deviations are calculated from the full
> trajectory average (large deviation) ?
>
> Any help is appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Vivek Modi
> Graduate Student
> IITK.
>