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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Shared Protein Complex Subunits Contribute to Explaining Disrupted Co-occurrence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003124 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrian Schneider, Michael F. Seidl, Berend Snel |
| Abstract |
The gene composition of present-day genomes has been shaped by a complicated evolutionary history, resulting in diverse distributions of genes across genomes. The pattern of presence and absence of a gene in different genomes is called its phylogenetic profile. It has been shown that proteins whose encoding genes have highly similar profiles tend to be functionally related: As these genes were gained and lost together, their encoded proteins can probably only perform their full function if both are present. However, a large proportion of genes encoding interacting proteins do not have matching profiles. In this study, we analysed one possible reason for this, namely that phylogenetic profiles can be affected by multi-functional proteins such as shared subunits of two or more protein complexes. We found that by considering triplets of proteins, of which one protein is multi-functional, a large fraction of disturbed co-occurrence patterns can be explained. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Luxembourg | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 36% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 68% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 July 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,480
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,153
of 207,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#80
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 207,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.