↓ Skip to main content

Exploiting holistic approaches to model specificity in protein phosphorylation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Exploiting holistic approaches to model specificity in protein phosphorylation
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Palmeri, Fabrizio Ferrè, Manuela Helmer-Citterich

Abstract

Phosphate plays a chemically unique role in shaping cellular signaling of all current living systems, especially eukaryotes. Protein phosphorylation has been studied at several levels, from the near-site context, both in sequence and structure, to the crowded cellular environment, and ultimately to the systems-level perspective. Despite the tremendous advances in mass spectrometry and efforts dedicated to the development of ad hoc highly sophisticated methods, phosphorylation site inference and associated kinase identification are still unresolved problems in kinome biology. The sequence and structure of the substrate near-site context are not sufficient alone to model the in vivo phosphorylation rules, and they should be integrated with orthogonal information in all possible applications. Here we provide an overview of the different contexts that contribute to protein phosphorylation, discussing their potential impact in phosphorylation site annotation and in predicting kinase-substrate specificity.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 25%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 20%
Computer Science 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 10%
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 07 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,138,631
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#3,856
of 11,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,880
of 252,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#79
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 252,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.