↓ Skip to main content

Use of Game-Theoretical Methods in Biochemistry and Biophysics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biological Physics, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Use of Game-Theoretical Methods in Biochemistry and Biophysics
Published in
Journal of Biological Physics, August 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10867-008-9101-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Schuster, Jan-Ulrich Kreft, Anja Schroeter, Thomas Pfeiffer

Abstract

Evolutionary game theory can be considered as an extension of the theory of evolutionary optimisation in that two or more organisms (or more generally, units of replication) tend to optimise their properties in an interdependent way. Thus, the outcome of the strategy adopted by one species (e.g., as a result of mutation and selection) depends on the strategy adopted by the other species. In this review, the use of evolutionary game theory for analysing biochemical and biophysical systems is discussed. The presentation is illustrated by a number of instructive examples such as the competition between microorganisms using different metabolic pathways for adenosine triphosphate production, the secretion of extracellular enzymes, the growth of trees and photosynthesis. These examples show that, due to conflicts of interest, the global optimum (in the sense of being the best solution for the whole system) is not always obtained. For example, some yeast species use metabolic pathways that waste nutrients, and in a dense tree canopy, trees grow taller than would be optimal for biomass productivity. From the viewpoint of game theory, the examples considered can be described by the Prisoner's Dilemma, snowdrift game, Tragedy of the Commons and rock-scissors-paper game.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
India 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Belgium 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 119 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 36%
Researcher 25 18%
Student > Master 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Professor 8 6%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 45%
Physics and Astronomy 10 7%
Computer Science 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 21 15%
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 14 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,314,171
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Physics
#144
of 296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,933
of 82,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Physics
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 296 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 82,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.