↓ Skip to main content

Identifying the topology of signaling networks from partial RNAi data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
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
Identifying the topology of signaling networks from partial RNAi data
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12918-016-0301-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuanfang Ren, Qiyao Wang, Md Mahmudul Hasan, Ahmet Ay, Tamer Kahveci

Abstract

Methods for inferring signaling networks using single gene knockdown RNAi experiments and reference networks have been proposed in recent years. These methods assume that RNAi information is available for all the genes in the signal transduction pathway, i.e., complete. This assumption does not always hold up since RNAi experiments are often incomplete and information for some genes is missing. In this article, we develop two methods to construct signaling networks from incomplete RNAi data with the help of a reference network. These methods infer the RNAi constraints for the missing genes such that the inferred network is closest to the reference network. We perform extensive experiments with both real and synthetic networks and demonstrate that these methods produce accurate results efficiently. Application of our methods to Wnt signal transduction pathway has shown that our methods can be used to construct highly accurate signaling networks from experimental data in less than 100 ms. The two methods that produce accurate results efficiently show great promise of constructing real signaling networks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Engineering 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#607
of 1,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,857
of 381,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#17
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 381,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.