↓ Skip to main content

Finding Associations among Histone Modifications Using Sparse Partial Correlation Networks

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
7 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
Finding Associations among Histone Modifications Using Sparse Partial Correlation Networks
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Lasserre, Ho-Ryun Chung, Martin Vingron

Abstract

Histone modifications are known to play an important role in the regulation of transcription. While individual modifications have received much attention in genome-wide analyses, little is known about their relationships. Some authors have built Bayesian networks of modifications, however most often they have used discretized data, and relied on unrealistic assumptions such as the absence of feedback mechanisms or hidden confounding factors. Here, we propose to infer undirected networks based on partial correlations between histone modifications. Within the partial correlation framework, correlations among two variables are controlled for associations induced by the other variables. Partial correlation networks thus focus on direct associations of histone modifications. We apply this methodology to data in CD4+ cells. The resulting network is well supported by common knowledge. When pairs of modifications show a large difference between their correlation and their partial correlation, a potential confounding factor is identified and provided as explanation. Data from different cell types (IMR90, H1) is also exploited in the analysis to assess the stability of the networks. The results are remarkably similar across cell types. Based on this observation, the networks from the three cell types are integrated into a consensus network to increase robustness. The data and the results discussed in the manuscript can be found, together with code, on http://spcn.molgen.mpg.de/index.html.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 6%
Spain 3 3%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 97 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 24%
Professor 11 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 5 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 21%
Computer Science 11 10%
Chemistry 3 3%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 6 5%
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 21 November 2013.
All research outputs
#15,875,393
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,787
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,226
of 209,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#66
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 209,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.