↓ Skip to main content

Reverse Engineering a Signaling Network Using Alternative Inputs

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Reverse Engineering a Signaling Network Using Alternative Inputs
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0007622
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiromasa Tanaka, Tau-Mu Yi

Abstract

One of the goals of systems biology is to reverse engineer in a comprehensive fashion the arrow diagrams of signal transduction systems. An important tool for ordering pathway components is genetic epistasis analysis, and here we present a strategy termed Alternative Inputs (AIs) to perform systematic epistasis analysis. An alternative input is defined as any genetic manipulation that can activate the signaling pathway instead of the natural input. We introduced the concept of an "AIs-Deletions matrix" that summarizes the outputs of all combinations of alternative inputs and deletions. We developed the theory and algorithms to construct a pairwise relationship graph from the AIs-Deletions matrix capturing both functional ordering (upstream, downstream) and logical relationships (AND, OR), and then interpreting these relationships into a standard arrow diagram. As a proof-of-principle, we applied this methodology to a subset of genes involved in yeast mating signaling. This experimental pilot study highlights the robustness of the approach and important technical challenges. In summary, this research formalizes and extends classical epistasis analysis from linear pathways to more complex networks, facilitating computational analysis and reconstruction of signaling arrow diagrams.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 7%
United States 2 7%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Slovenia 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 21 72%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 34%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 14%
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 07 July 2010.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,767
of 193,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,381
of 94,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#452
of 537 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 94,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 537 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.