↓ Skip to main content

A systematic comparison of the MetaCyc and KEGG pathway databases

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
372 Mendeley
citeulike
10 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 systematic comparison of the MetaCyc and KEGG pathway databases
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomer Altman, Michael Travers, Anamika Kothari, Ron Caspi, Peter D Karp

Abstract

The MetaCyc and KEGG projects have developed large metabolic pathway databases that are used for a variety of applications including genome analysis and metabolic engineering. We present a comparison of the compound, reaction, and pathway content of MetaCyc version 16.0 and a KEGG version downloaded on Feb-27-2012 to increase understanding of their relative sizes, their degree of overlap, and their scope. To assess their overlap, we must know the correspondences between compounds, reactions, and pathways in MetaCyc, and those in KEGG. We devoted significant effort to computational and manual matching of these entities, and we evaluated the accuracy of the correspondences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 372 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 3%
Netherlands 5 1%
Germany 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Latvia 1 <1%
Other 9 2%
Unknown 334 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 94 25%
Researcher 85 23%
Student > Master 42 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 51 14%
Unknown 58 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 137 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 68 18%
Computer Science 31 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 3%
Engineering 10 3%
Other 44 12%
Unknown 70 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 26 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,192,756
of 23,940,793 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#544
of 7,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,075
of 200,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#15
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,940,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 200,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.