↓ Skip to main content

Improving stability and understandability of genotype-phenotype mapping in Saccharomyces using regularized variable selection in L-PLS regression

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Improving stability and understandability of genotype-phenotype mapping in Saccharomyces using regularized variable selection in L-PLS regression
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-327
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tahir Mehmood, Jonas Warringer, Lars Snipen, Solve Sæbø

Abstract

Multivariate approaches have been successfully applied to genome wide association studies. Recently, a Partial Least Squares (PLS) based approach was introduced for mapping yeast genotype-phenotype relations, where background information such as gene function classification, gene dispensability, recent or ancient gene copy number variations and the presence of premature stop codons or frameshift mutations in reading frames, were used post hoc to explain selected genes. One of the latest advancement in PLS named L-Partial Least Squares (L-PLS), where 'L' presents the used data structure, enables the use of background information at the modeling level. Here, a modification of L-PLS with variable importance on projection (VIP) was implemented using a stepwise regularized procedure for gene and background information selection. Results were compared to PLS-based procedures, where no background information was used.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Australia 1 5%
Unknown 18 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 15%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 35%
Computer Science 4 20%
Engineering 3 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 15%
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 14 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,323,689
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,287
of 7,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,921
of 278,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#110
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 278,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.