↓ Skip to main content

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Candidate gene prioritization

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Genetics and Genomics, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Candidate gene prioritization
Published in
Molecular Genetics and Genomics, August 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00438-012-0710-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Masoudi-Nejad, Alireza Meshkin, Behzad Haji-Eghrari, Gholamreza Bidkhori

Abstract

Candidate gene identification is typically labour intensive, involving laboratory experiments required to corroborate or disprove any hypothesis for a nominated candidate gene being considered the causative gene. The traditional approach to reduce the number of candidate genes entails fine-mapping studies using markers and pedigrees. Gene prioritization establishes the ranking of candidate genes based on their relevance to the biological process of interest, from which the most promising genes can be selected for further analysis. To date, many computational methods have focused on the prediction of candidate genes by analysis of their inherent sequence characteristics and similarity with respect to known disease genes, as well as their functional annotation. In the last decade, several computational tools for prioritizing candidate genes have been proposed. A large number of them are web-based tools, while others are standalone applications that install and run locally. This review attempts to take a close look at gene prioritization criteria, as well as candidate gene prioritization algorithms, and thus provide a comprehensive synopsis of the subject matter.

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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 73 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 25%
Researcher 18 23%
Student > Master 14 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 44%
Computer Science 13 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 7 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 12 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,188,507
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Genetics and Genomics
#279
of 3,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,023
of 186,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Genetics and Genomics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,318 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 186,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them