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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
iMS2Flux– a high–throughput processing tool for stable isotope labeled mass spectrometric data used for metabolic flux analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-13-295 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C Hart Poskar, Jan Huege, Christian Krach, Mathias Franke, Yair Shachar-Hill, Björn H Junker |
| Abstract |
Metabolic flux analysis has become an established method in systems biology and functional genomics. The most common approach for determining intracellular metabolic fluxes is to utilize mass spectrometry in combination with stable isotope labeling experiments. However, before the mass spectrometric data can be used it has to be corrected for biases caused by naturally occurring stable isotopes, by the analytical technique(s) employed, or by the biological sample itself. Finally the MS data and the labeling information it contains have to be assembled into a data format usable by flux analysis software (of which several dedicated packages exist). Currently the processing of mass spectrometric data is time-consuming and error-prone requiring peak by peak cut-and-paste analysis and manual curation. In order to facilitate high-throughput metabolic flux analysis, the automation of multiple steps in the analytical workflow is necessary. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Singapore | 1 | 1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 31% |
| Researcher | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 34% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 16% |
| Engineering | 11 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 13% |
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 12 November 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
#136,776
of 179,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#86
of 108 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 179,647 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 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.