↓ Skip to main content

Reaction Factoring and Bipartite Update Graphs Accelerate the Gillespie Algorithm for Large-Scale Biochemical Systems

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Reaction Factoring and Bipartite Update Graphs Accelerate the Gillespie Algorithm for Large-Scale Biochemical Systems
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0008125
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sagar Indurkhya, Jacob Beal

Abstract

ODE simulations of chemical systems perform poorly when some of the species have extremely low concentrations. Stochastic simulation methods, which can handle this case, have been impractical for large systems due to computational complexity. We observe, however, that when modeling complex biological systems: (1) a small number of reactions tend to occur a disproportionately large percentage of the time, and (2) a small number of species tend to participate in a disproportionately large percentage of reactions. We exploit these properties in LOLCAT Method, a new implementation of the Gillespie Algorithm. First, factoring reaction propensities allows many propensities dependent on a single species to be updated in a single operation. Second, representing dependencies between reactions with a bipartite graph of reactions and species requires only storage for reactions, rather than the required for a graph that includes only reactions. Together, these improvements allow our implementation of LOLCAT Method to execute orders of magnitude faster than currently existing Gillespie Algorithm variants when simulating several yeast MAPK cascade models.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 9%
Italy 2 9%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 18 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 22%
Mathematics 3 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#5,310,844
of 25,101,232 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#84,572
of 217,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,569
of 176,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#225
of 638 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,101,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 176,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 638 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 64% of its contemporaries.