↓ Skip to main content

PathwayBooster: a tool to support the curation of metabolic pathways

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
PathwayBooster: a tool to support the curation of metabolic pathways
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0447-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Liberal, Beata K Lisowska, David J Leak, John W Pinney

Abstract

Despite several recent advances in the automated generation of draft metabolic reconstructions, the manual curation of these networks to produce high quality genome-scale metabolic models remains a labour-intensive and challenging task. We present PathwayBooster, an open-source software tool to support the manual comparison and curation of metabolic models. It combines gene annotations from GenBank files and other sources with information retrieved from the metabolic databases BRENDA and KEGG to produce a set of pathway diagrams and reports summarising the evidence for the presence of a reaction in a given organism's metabolic network. By comparing multiple sources of evidence within a common framework, PathwayBooster assists the curator in the identification of likely false positive (misannotated enzyme) and false negative (pathway hole) reactions. Reaction evidence may be taken from alternative annotations of the same genome and/or a set of closely related organisms. By integrating and visualising evidence from multiple sources, PathwayBooster reduces the manual effort required in the curation of a metabolic model. The software is available online at http://www.theosysbio.bio.ic.ac.uk/resources/pathwaybooster/ .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 5%
Israel 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 35 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 27%
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 44%
Computer Science 8 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 17%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,414,430
of 14,573,111 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,439
of 5,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,867
of 217,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,573,111 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,420 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 217,380 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them