↓ Skip to main content

DGIdb: mining the druggable genome

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Methods, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
415 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
541 Mendeley
citeulike
16 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
DGIdb: mining the druggable genome
Published in
Nature Methods, October 2013
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.2689
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malachi Griffith, Obi L Griffith, Adam C Coffman, James V Weible, Josh F McMichael, Nicholas C Spies, James Koval, Indraniel Das, Matthew B Callaway, James M Eldred, Christopher A Miller, Janakiraman Subramanian, Ramaswamy Govindan, Runjun D Kumar, Ron Bose, Li Ding, Jason R Walker, David E Larson, David J Dooling, Scott M Smith, Timothy J Ley, Elaine R Mardis, Richard K Wilson

Abstract

The Drug-Gene Interaction database (DGIdb) mines existing resources that generate hypotheses about how mutated genes might be targeted therapeutically or prioritized for drug development. It provides an interface for searching lists of genes against a compendium of drug-gene interactions and potentially 'druggable' genes. DGIdb can be accessed at http://dgidb.org/.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users 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 541 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 3%
Germany 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 2 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 498 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 142 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 133 25%
Student > Master 44 8%
Student > Bachelor 43 8%
Other 27 5%
Other 87 16%
Unknown 65 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 175 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 113 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 9%
Computer Science 32 6%
Chemistry 22 4%
Other 69 13%
Unknown 83 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. 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 28 July 2022.
All research outputs
#456,854
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#560
of 5,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,613
of 224,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#10
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 224,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.