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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
From Functional Genomics to Functional Immunomics: New Challenges, Old Problems, Big Rewards
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020081 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulisses M Braga-Neto, Ernesto T A Marques |
| Abstract |
The development of DNA microarray technology a decade ago led to the establishment of functional genomics as one of the most active and successful scientific disciplines today. With the ongoing development of immunomic microarray technology-a spatially addressable, large-scale technology for measurement of specific immunological response-the new challenge of functional immunomics is emerging, which bears similarities to but is also significantly different from functional genomics. Immunonic data has been successfully used to identify biological markers involved in autoimmune diseases, allergies, viral infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), influenza, diabetes, and responses to cancer vaccines. This review intends to provide a coherent vision of this nascent scientific field, and speculate on future research directions. We discuss at some length issues such as epitope prediction, immunomic microarray technology and its applications, and computation and statistical challenges related to functional immunomics. Based on the recent discovery of regulation mechanisms in T cell responses, we envision the use of immunomic microarrays as a tool for advances in systems biology of cellular immune responses, by means of immunomic regulatory network models. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| South Africa | 3 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 92 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 9% |
| Professor | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 56 | 49% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 14% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 10 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2012.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#5,637
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,579
of 90,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 90,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.