I have a doubt, how to interpret these two statement? Ruminococcus gnavus
showed the strongest Spearman correlation with the second principal coordinate. The second principal coordinate was driven by
Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. These two were taking about the same figure, so how can both of them hold true or what is something that might be missing.
@Sriv_29, Could it have been a typo? Maybe one of the two references to "second" should have been "first" (I would suspect the first one). Is this in our documentation, or a paper? If you have further questions can you please share the source?
1 Like
Hi, I also think that it was a typo. For example, first they wrote that the axis 2 correlated with Ruminicoccus. Then they wrote "second axis", referring to the first, but counting it as the second just because there are only 2 axes and they already described first.
Anyway, if they provided a figure of some kind maybe it can clarify the things.
I also believed it to be a typo, however, I am new to this PCoA analysis, therefore, I wanted to confirm that if we ignore the two different species, then both the lines mean the same thing.
Also, it was from a recently published research paper that I came across. Thank you for your reply.