↓ Skip to main content

Computational predictors fail to identify amino acid substitution effects at rheostat positions

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2017
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
patent
6 patents

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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.
Article details
Title
Computational predictors fail to identify amino acid substitution effects at rheostat positions
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2017
DOI 10.1038/srep41329
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Many computational approaches exist for predicting the effects of amino acid substitutions. Here, we considered whether the protein sequence position class - rheostat or toggle - affects these predictions. The classes are defined as follows: experimentally evaluated effects of amino acid substitutions at toggle positions are binary, while rheostat positions show progressive changes. For substitutions in the LacI protein, all evaluated methods failed two key expectations: toggle neutrals were incorrectly predicted as more non-neutral than rheostat non-neutrals, while toggle and rheostat neutrals were incorrectly predicted to be different. However, toggle non-neutrals were distinct from rheostat neutrals. Since many toggle positions are conserved, and most rheostats are not, predictors appear to annotate position conservation better than mutational effect. This finding can explain the well-known observation that predictors assign disproportionate weight to conservation, as well as the field's inability to improve predictor performance. Thus, building reliable predictors requires distinguishing between rheostat and toggle positions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 28%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 22%
Chemical Engineering 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 September 2024.
All research outputs
#3,601,902
of 34,089,221 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#31,360
of 182,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,476
of 469,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#810
of 4,296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,089,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 182,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 469,649 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.