↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying Gene Regulatory Relationships with Association Measures: A Comparative Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Quantifying Gene Regulatory Relationships with Association Measures: A Comparative Study
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2017.00096
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi-Ping Liu

Abstract

In this work, we provide a comparative study of the main available association measures for characterizing gene regulatory strengths. Detecting the association between genes (as well as RNAs, proteins, and other molecules) is very important to decipher their functional relationship from genomic data in bioinformatics. With the availability of more and more high-throughput datasets, the quantification of meaningful relationships by employing association measures will make great sense of the data. There are various quantitative measures have been proposed for identifying molecular associations. They are depended on different statistical assumptions, for different intentions, as well as with different computational costs in calculating the associations in thousands of genes. Here, we comprehensively summarize these association measures employed and developed for describing gene regulatory relationships. We compare these measures in their consistency and specificity of detecting gene regulations from both simulation and real gene expression profiling data. Obviously, these measures used in genes can be easily extended in other biological molecules or across them.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Mathematics 3 9%
Engineering 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%
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 03 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,905,157
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#6,145
of 12,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,207
of 312,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#32
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,038 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 312,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.