↓ Skip to main content

Methods and approaches in the topology-based analysis of biological pathways

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
290 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
Methods and approaches in the topology-based analysis of biological pathways
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00278
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Mitrea, Zeinab Taghavi, Behzad Bokanizad, Samer Hanoudi, Rebecca Tagett, Michele Donato, Călin Voichiţa, Sorin Drăghici

Abstract

The goal of pathway analysis is to identify the pathways significantly impacted in a given phenotype. Many current methods are based on algorithms that consider pathways as simple gene lists, dramatically under-utilizing the knowledge that such pathways are meant to capture. During the past few years, a plethora of methods claiming to incorporate various aspects of the pathway topology have been proposed. These topology-based methods, sometimes referred to as "third generation," have the potential to better model the phenomena described by pathways. Although there is now a large variety of approaches used for this purpose, no review is currently available to offer guidance for potential users and developers. This review covers 22 such topology-based pathway analysis methods published in the last decade. We compare these methods based on: type of pathways analyzed (e.g., signaling or metabolic), input (subset of genes, all genes, fold changes, gene p-values, etc.), mathematical models, pathway scoring approaches, output (one or more pathway scores, p-values, etc.) and implementation (web-based, standalone, etc.). We identify and discuss challenges, arising both in methodology and in pathway representation, including inconsistent terminology, different data formats, lack of meaningful benchmarks, and the lack of tissue and condition specificity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Spain 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Russia 2 <1%
Hungary 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 263 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 80 28%
Researcher 59 20%
Student > Master 35 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Other 14 5%
Other 38 13%
Unknown 44 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 87 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 20%
Computer Science 37 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Mathematics 11 4%
Other 33 11%
Unknown 50 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,262,856
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,939
of 13,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,192
of 280,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#93
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 280,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.