↓ Skip to main content

Protein Networks as Logic Functions in Development and Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, September 2011
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
268 Mendeley
citeulike
30 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
Protein Networks as Logic Functions in Development and Cancer
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002180
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janusz Dutkowski, Trey Ideker

Abstract

Many biological and clinical outcomes are based not on single proteins, but on modules of proteins embedded in protein networks. A fundamental question is how the proteins within each module contribute to the overall module activity. Here, we study the modules underlying three representative biological programs related to tissue development, breast cancer metastasis, or progression of brain cancer, respectively. For each case we apply a new method, called Network-Guided Forests, to identify predictive modules together with logic functions which tie the activity of each module to the activity of its component genes. The resulting modules implement a diverse repertoire of decision logic which cannot be captured using the simple approximations suggested in previous work such as gene summation or subtraction. We show that in cancer, certain combinations of oncogenes and tumor suppressors exert competing forces on the system, suggesting that medical genetics should move beyond cataloguing individual cancer genes to cataloguing their combinatorial logic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 268 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 6%
France 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Nigeria 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 228 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 31%
Researcher 80 30%
Student > Master 20 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 6%
Other 15 6%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 14 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 146 54%
Computer Science 45 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 3%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 21 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 16 December 2012.
All research outputs
#2,383,967
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#2,134
of 8,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,937
of 143,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#22
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 143,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.