↓ Skip to main content

Identifying diseases-related metabolites using random walk

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
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
Identifying diseases-related metabolites using random walk
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2098-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Hu, Tianyi Zhao, Ningyi Zhang, Tianyi Zang, Jun Zhang, Liang Cheng

Abstract

Metabolites disrupted by abnormal state of human body are deemed as the effect of diseases. In comparison with the cause of diseases like genes, these markers are easier to be captured for the prevention and diagnosis of metabolic diseases. Currently, a large number of metabolic markers of diseases need to be explored, which drive us to do this work. The existing metabolite-disease associations were extracted from Human Metabolome Database (HMDB) using a text mining tool NCBO annotator as priori knowledge. Next we calculated the similarity of a pair-wise metabolites based on the similarity of disease sets of them. Then, all the similarities of metabolite pairs were utilized for constructing a weighted metabolite association network (WMAN). Subsequently, the network was utilized for predicting novel metabolic markers of diseases using random walk. Totally, 604 metabolites and 228 diseases were extracted from HMDB. From 604 metabolites, 453 metabolites are selected to construct the WMAN, where each metabolite is deemed as a node, and the similarity of two metabolites as the weight of the edge linking them. The performance of the network is validated using the leave one out method. As a result, the high area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.7048) is achieved. The further case studies for identifying novel metabolites of diabetes mellitus were validated in the recent studies. In this paper, we presented a novel method for prioritizing metabolite-disease pairs. The superior performance validates its reliability for exploring novel metabolic markers of diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 9 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,480,611
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,893
of 7,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,344
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#90
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.