↓ Skip to main content

Chapter 9: Analyses Using Disease Ontologies

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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.
Title
Chapter 9: Analyses Using Disease Ontologies
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002827
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigam H. Shah, Tyler Cole, Mark A. Musen

Abstract

Advanced statistical methods used to analyze high-throughput data such as gene-expression assays result in long lists of "significant genes." One way to gain insight into the significance of altered expression levels is to determine whether Gene Ontology (GO) terms associated with a particular biological process, molecular function, or cellular component are over- or under-represented in the set of genes deemed significant. This process, referred to as enrichment analysis, profiles a gene-set, and is widely used to makes sense of the results of high-throughput experiments. The canonical example of enrichment analysis is when the output dataset is a list of genes differentially expressed in some condition. To determine the biological relevance of a lengthy gene list, the usual solution is to perform enrichment analysis with the GO. We can aggregate the annotating GO concepts for each gene in this list, and arrive at a profile of the biological processes or mechanisms affected by the condition under study. While GO has been the principal target for enrichment analysis, the methods of enrichment analysis are generalizable. We can conduct the same sort of profiling along other ontologies of interest. Just as scientists can ask "Which biological process is over-represented in my set of interesting genes or proteins?" we can also ask "Which disease (or class of diseases) is over-represented in my set of interesting genes or proteins?". For example, by annotating known protein mutations with disease terms from the ontologies in BioPortal, Mort et al. recently identified a class of diseases--blood coagulation disorders--that were associated with a 14-fold depletion in substitutions at O-linked glycosylation sites. With the availability of tools for automatic annotation of datasets with terms from disease ontologies, there is no reason to restrict enrichment analyses to the GO. In this chapter, we will discuss methods to perform enrichment analysis using any ontology available in the biomedical domain. We will review the general methodology of enrichment analysis, the associated challenges, and discuss the novel translational analyses enabled by the existence of public, national computational infrastructure and by the use of disease ontologies in such analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Spain 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 135 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 9%
Other 12 8%
Student > Master 12 8%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 10 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 57 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 16%
Computer Science 16 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 16 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#5,159
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,789
of 288,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#54
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 288,779 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 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.