↓ Skip to main content

Topological analysis of metabolic networks integrating co-segregating transcriptomes and metabolomes in type 2 diabetic rat congenic series

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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.
Title
Topological analysis of metabolic networks integrating co-segregating transcriptomes and metabolomes in type 2 diabetic rat congenic series
Published in
Genome Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0352-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc-Emmanuel Dumas, Céline Domange, Sophie Calderari, Andrea Rodríguez Martínez, Rafael Ayala, Steven P. Wilder, Nicolas Suárez-Zamorano, Stephan C. Collins, Robert H. Wallis, Quan Gu, Yulan Wang, Christophe Hue, Georg W. Otto, Karène Argoud, Vincent Navratil, Steve C. Mitchell, John C. Lindon, Elaine Holmes, Jean-Baptiste Cazier, Jeremy K. Nicholson, Dominique Gauguier

Abstract

The genetic regulation of metabolic phenotypes (i.e., metabotypes) in type 2 diabetes mellitus occurs through complex organ-specific cellular mechanisms and networks contributing to impaired insulin secretion and insulin resistance. Genome-wide gene expression profiling systems can dissect the genetic contributions to metabolome and transcriptome regulations. The integrative analysis of multiple gene expression traits and metabolic phenotypes (i.e., metabotypes) together with their underlying genetic regulation remains a challenge. Here, we introduce a systems genetics approach based on the topological analysis of a combined molecular network made of genes and metabolites identified through expression and metabotype quantitative trait locus mapping (i.e., eQTL and mQTL) to prioritise biological characterisation of candidate genes and traits. We used systematic metabotyping by (1)H NMR spectroscopy and genome-wide gene expression in white adipose tissue to map molecular phenotypes to genomic blocks associated with obesity and insulin secretion in a series of rat congenic strains derived from spontaneously diabetic Goto-Kakizaki (GK) and normoglycemic Brown-Norway (BN) rats. We implemented a network biology strategy approach to visualize the shortest paths between metabolites and genes significantly associated with each genomic block. Despite strong genomic similarities (95-99 %) among congenics, each strain exhibited specific patterns of gene expression and metabotypes, reflecting the metabolic consequences of series of linked genetic polymorphisms in the congenic intervals. We subsequently used the congenic panel to map quantitative trait loci underlying specific mQTLs and genome-wide eQTLs. Variation in key metabolites like glucose, succinate, lactate, or 3-hydroxybutyrate and second messenger precursors like inositol was associated with several independent genomic intervals, indicating functional redundancy in these regions. To navigate through the complexity of these association networks we mapped candidate genes and metabolites onto metabolic pathways and implemented a shortest path strategy to highlight potential mechanistic links between metabolites and transcripts at colocalized mQTLs and eQTLs. Minimizing the shortest path length drove prioritization of biological validations by gene silencing. These results underline the importance of network-based integration of multilevel systems genetics datasets to improve understanding of the genetic architecture of metabotype and transcriptomic regulation and to characterize novel functional roles for genes determining tissue-specific metabolism.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Chemistry 4 8%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 20 38%
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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,990,855
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#1,255
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,881
of 322,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#27
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 322,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.