↓ Skip to main content

Implications of pleiotropy: challenges and opportunities for mining Big Data in biomedicine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Implications of pleiotropy: challenges and opportunities for mining Big Data in biomedicine
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00229
Pubmed ID
Authors

Can Yang, Cong Li, Qian Wang, Dongjun Chung, Hongyu Zhao

Abstract

Pleiotropy arises when a locus influences multiple traits. Rich GWAS findings of various traits in the past decade reveal many examples of this phenomenon, suggesting the wide existence of pleiotropic effects. What underlies this phenomenon is the biological connection among seemingly unrelated traits/diseases. Characterizing the molecular mechanisms of pleiotropy not only helps to explain the relationship between diseases, but may also contribute to novel insights concerning the pathological mechanism of each specific disease, leading to better disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment. However, most pleiotropic effects remain elusive because their functional roles have not been systematically examined. A systematic investigation requires availability of qualified measurements at multilayered biological processes (e.g., transcription and translation). The rise of Big Data in biomedicine, such as high-quality multi-omics data, biomedical imaging data and electronic medical records of patients, offers us an unprecedented opportunity to investigate pleiotropy. There will be a great need of computationally efficient and statistically rigorous methods for integrative analysis of these Big Data in biomedicine. In this review, we outline many opportunities and challenges in methodology developments for systematic analysis of pleiotropy, and highlight its implications on disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 104 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 24%
Researcher 22 21%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 13%
Computer Science 10 9%
Mathematics 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,258,958
of 24,224,854 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#2,173
of 13,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,770
of 267,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#31
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,224,854 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 267,221 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.