↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating prior knowledge improves detection of differences in bacterial growth rate

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Incorporating prior knowledge improves detection of differences in bacterial growth rate
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12918-015-0204-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lydia M Rickett, Nick Pullen, Matthew Hartley, Cyril Zipfel, Sophien Kamoun, József Baranyi, Richard J. Morris

Abstract

Robust statistical detection of differences in the bacterial growth rate can be challenging, particularly when dealing with small differences or noisy data. The Bayesian approach provides a consistent framework for inferring model parameters and comparing hypotheses. The method captures the full uncertainty of parameter values, whilst making effective use of prior knowledge about a given system to improve estimation. We demonstrated the application of Bayesian analysis to bacterial growth curve comparison. Following extensive testing of the method, the analysis was applied to the large dataset of bacterial responses which are freely available at the web-resource, ComBase. Detection was found to be improved by using prior knowledge from clusters of previously analysed experimental results at similar environmental conditions. A comparison was also made to a more traditional statistical testing method, the F-test, and Bayesian analysis was found to perform more conclusively and to be capable of attributing significance to more subtle differences in growth rate. We have demonstrated that by making use of existing experimental knowledge, it is possible to significantly improve detection of differences in bacterial growth rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 22%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Engineering 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 January 2022.
All research outputs
#5,760,792
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#187
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,998
of 274,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#3
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 274,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.