↓ Skip to main content

Experimental assessment of static and dynamic algorithms for gene regulation inference from time series expression data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Experimental assessment of static and dynamic algorithms for gene regulation inference from time series expression data
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2013.00303
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miguel Lopes, Gianluca Bontempi

Abstract

Accurate inference of causal gene regulatory networks from gene expression data is an open bioinformatics challenge. Gene interactions are dynamical processes and consequently we can expect that the effect of any regulation action occurs after a certain temporal lag. However such lag is unknown a priori and temporal aspects require specific inference algorithms. In this paper we aim to assess the impact of taking into consideration temporal aspects on the final accuracy of the inference procedure. In particular we will compare the accuracy of static algorithms, where no dynamic aspect is considered, to that of fixed lag and adaptive lag algorithms in three inference tasks from microarray expression data. Experimental results show that network inference algorithms that take dynamics into account perform consistently better than static ones, once the considered lags are properly chosen. However, no individual algorithm stands out in all three inference tasks, and the challenging nature of network inference tasks is evidenced, as a large number of the assessed algorithms does not perform better than random.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Professor 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 17%
Computer Science 7 15%
Engineering 4 9%
Mathematics 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 6 13%
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 24 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,215,721
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#8,548
of 11,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,825
of 280,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#263
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.