↓ Skip to main content

Shrinking the Metabolic Solution Space Using Experimental Datasets

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
citeulike
9 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
Shrinking the Metabolic Solution Space Using Experimental Datasets
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002662
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L. Reed

Abstract

Constraint-based models of metabolism have been used in a variety of studies on drug discovery, metabolic engineering, evolution, and multi-species interactions. These genome-scale models can be generated for any sequenced organism since their main parameters (i.e., reaction stoichiometry) are highly conserved. Their relatively low parameter requirement makes these models easy to develop; however, these models often result in a solution space with multiple possible flux distributions, making it difficult to determine the precise flux state in the cell. Recent research efforts in this modeling field have investigated how additional experimental data, including gene expression, protein expression, metabolite concentrations, and kinetic parameters, can be used to reduce the solution space. This mini-review provides a summary of the data-driven computational approaches that are available for reducing the solution space and thereby improve predictions of intracellular fluxes by constraint-based models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 4%
Germany 3 1%
Netherlands 3 1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 200 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 30%
Researcher 57 25%
Student > Master 31 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 6%
Student > Bachelor 13 6%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 17 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 104 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 13%
Engineering 26 11%
Computer Science 21 9%
Neuroscience 3 1%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 27 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 September 2012.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,219
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,220
of 187,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#68
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 187,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.