↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the gain of biological data integration in gene networks inference

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Assessing the gain of biological data integration in gene networks inference
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-13-s6-s7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fábio FR Vicente, Fabrício M Lopes, Ronaldo F Hashimoto, Roberto M Cesar

Abstract

A current challenge in gene annotation is to define the gene function in the context of the network of relationships instead of using single genes. The inference of gene networks (GNs) has emerged as an approach to better understand the biology of the system and to study how several components of this network interact with each other and keep their functions stable. However, in general there is no sufficient data to accurately recover the GNs from their expression levels leading to the curse of dimensionality, in which the number of variables is higher than samples. One way to mitigate this problem is to integrate biological data instead of using only the expression profiles in the inference process. Nowadays, the use of several biological information in inference methods had a significant increase in order to better recover the connections between genes and reduce the false positives. What makes this strategy so interesting is the possibility of confirming the known connections through the included biological data, and the possibility of discovering new relationships between genes when observed the expression data. Although several works in data integration have increased the performance of the network inference methods, the real contribution of adding each type of biological information in the obtained improvement is not clear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 41%
Computer Science 7 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 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 11 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,323,689
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#8,146
of 10,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,950
of 183,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#104
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,617 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 183,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.