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 |
Dynamic strain scanning optimization: an efficient strain design strategy for balanced yield, titer, and productivity. DySScO strategy for strain design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Biotechnology, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6750-13-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kai Zhuang, Laurence Yang, William R Cluett, Radhakrishnan Mahadevan |
| Abstract |
In recent years, constraint-based metabolic models have emerged as an important tool for metabolic engineering; a number of computational algorithms have been developed for identifying metabolic engineering strategies where the production of the desired chemical is coupled with the growth of the organism. A caveat of the existing algorithms is that they do not take the bioprocess into consideration; as a result, while the product yield can be optimized using these algorithms, the product titer and productivity cannot be optimized. In order to address this issue, we developed the Dynamic Strain Scanning Optimization (DySScO) strategy, which integrates the Dynamic Flux Balance Analysis (dFBA) method with existing strain algorithms. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Denmark | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 138 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 26% |
| Researcher | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 38 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 31 | 21% |
| Engineering | 30 | 21% |
| Chemical Engineering | 10 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
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 February 2013.
All research outputs
#18,552,700
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biotechnology
#767
of 938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,957
of 284,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biotechnology
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 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 938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 284,399 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 16 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.