↓ Skip to main content

A graph-theoretic approach for inparalog detection

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
A graph-theoretic approach for inparalog detection
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-s19-s16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Tremblay-Savard, Krister M Swenson

Abstract

Understanding the history of a gene family that evolves through duplication, speciation, and loss is a fundamental problem in comparative genomics. Features such as function, position, and structural similarity between genes are intimately connected to this history; relationships between genes such as orthology (genes related through a speciation event) or paralogy (genes related through a duplication event) are usually correlated with these features. For example, recent work has shown that in human and mouse there is a strong connection between function and inparalogs, the paralogs that were created since the speciation event separating the human and mouse lineages. Methods exist for detecting inparalogs that either use information from only two species, or consider a set of species but rely on clustering methods. In this paper we present a graph-theoretic approach for finding lower bounds on the number of inparalogs for a given set of species; we pose an edge covering problem on the similarity graph and give an efficient 2/3-approximation as well as a faster heuristic. Since the physical position of inparalogs corresponding to recent speciations is not likely to have changed since the duplication, we also use our predictions to estimate the types of duplications that have occurred in some vertebrates and drosophila.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 17%
Brazil 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 67%
Computer Science 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
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 11 January 2013.
All research outputs
#15,261,106
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,363
of 7,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,219
of 280,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#92
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,254 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 280,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.