↓ Skip to main content

The origins of the evolutionary signal used to predict protein-protein interactions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
The origins of the evolutionary signal used to predict protein-protein interactions
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-12-238
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lakshmipuram S Swapna, Narayanaswamy Srinivasan, David L Robertson, Simon C Lovell

Abstract

The correlation of genetic distances between pairs of protein sequence alignments has been used to infer protein-protein interactions. It has been suggested that these correlations are based on the signal of co-evolution between interacting proteins. However, although mutations in different proteins associated with maintaining an interaction clearly occur (particularly in binding interfaces and neighbourhoods), many other factors contribute to correlated rates of sequence evolution. Proteins in the same genome are usually linked by shared evolutionary history and so it would be expected that there would be topological similarities in their phylogenetic trees, whether they are interacting or not. For this reason the underlying species tree is often corrected for. Moreover processes such as expression level, are known to effect evolutionary rates. However, it has been argued that the correlated rates of evolution used to predict protein interaction explicitly includes shared evolutionary history; here we test this hypothesis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 4%
France 1 4%
India 1 4%
Japan 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 19 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 33%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 75%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Environmental Science 2 8%
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 07 December 2012.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#3,267
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,882
of 286,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#40
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 286,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.