↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative proteomics signature profiling based on network contextualization

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
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
Quantitative proteomics signature profiling based on network contextualization
Published in
Biology Direct, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13062-015-0098-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wilson Wen Bin Goh, Tiannan Guo, Ruedi Aebersold, Limsoon Wong

Abstract

We present a network-based method, namely quantitative proteomic signature profiling (qPSP) that improves the biological content of proteomic data by converting protein expressions into hit-rates in protein complexes. We demonstrate, using two clinical proteomics datasets, that qPSP produces robust discrimination between phenotype classes (e.g. normal vs. disease) and uncovers phenotype-relevant protein complexes. Regardless of acquisition paradigm, comparisons of qPSP against conventional methods (e.g. t-test or hypergeometric test) demonstrate that it produces more stable and consistent predictions, even at small sample size. We show that qPSP is theoretically robust to noise, and that this robustness to noise is also observable in practice. Comparative analysis of hit-rates and protein expressions in significant complexes reveals that hit-rates are a useful means of summarizing differential behavior in a complex-specific manner. Given qPSP's ability to discriminate phenotype classes even at small sample sizes, high robustness to noise, and better summary statistics, it can be deployed towards analysis of highly heterogeneous clinical proteomics data. This article was reviewed by Frank Eisenhaber and Sebastian Maurer-Stroh. Reviewed by Frank Eisenhaber and Sebastian Maurer-Stroh.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Singapore 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 22%
Computer Science 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,860,134
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#356
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,149
of 390,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 390,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.