↓ Skip to main content

GROOLS: reactive graph reasoning for genome annotation through biological processes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
GROOLS: reactive graph reasoning for genome annotation through biological processes
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2126-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Mercier, Adrien Josso, Claudine Médigue, David Vallenet

Abstract

High quality functional annotation is essential for understanding the phenotypic consequences encoded in a genome. Despite improvements in bioinformatics methods, millions of sequences in databanks are not assigned reliable functions. The curation of protein functions in the context of biological processes is a way to evaluate and improve their annotation. We developed an expert system using paraconsistent logic, named GROOLS (Genomic Rule Object-Oriented Logic System), that evaluates the completeness and the consistency of predicted functions through biological processes like metabolic pathways. Using a generic and hierarchical representation of knowledge, biological processes are modeled in a graph from which observations (i.e. predictions and expectations) are propagated by rules. At the end of the reasoning, conclusions are assigned to biological process components and highlight uncertainties and inconsistencies. Results on 14 microbial organisms are presented. GROOLS software is designed to evaluate the overall accuracy of functional unit and pathway predictions according to organism experimental data like growth phenotypes. It assists biocurators in the functional annotation of proteins by focusing on missing or contradictory observations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Other 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,745,276
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,821
of 7,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,575
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#24
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.