↓ Skip to main content

Bridging the gap between clinicians and systems biologists: from network biology to translational biomedical research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Bridging the gap between clinicians and systems biologists: from network biology to translational biomedical research
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-1078-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natini Jinawath, Sacarin Bunbanjerdsuk, Maneerat Chayanupatkul, Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon, Nithi Asavapanumas, Jisnuson Svasti, Varodom Charoensawan

Abstract

With the wealth of data accumulated from completely sequenced genomes and other high-throughput experiments, global studies of biological systems, by simultaneously investigating multiple biological entities (e.g. genes, transcripts, proteins), has become a routine. Network representation is frequently used to capture the presence of these molecules as well as their relationship. Network biology has been widely used in molecular biology and genetics, where several network properties have been shown to be functionally important. Here, we discuss how such methodology can be useful to translational biomedical research, where scientists traditionally focus on one or a small set of genes, diseases, and drug candidates at any one time. We first give an overview of network representation frequently used in biology: what nodes and edges represent, and review its application in preclinical research to date. Using cancer as an example, we review how network biology can facilitate system-wide approaches to identify targeted small molecule inhibitors. These types of inhibitors have the potential to be more specific, resulting in high efficacy treatments with less side effects, compared to the conventional treatments such as chemotherapy. Global analysis may provide better insight into the overall picture of human diseases, as well as identify previously overlooked problems, leading to rapid advances in medicine. From the clinicians' point of view, it is necessary to bridge the gap between theoretical network biology and practical biomedical research, in order to improve the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of the world's major diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 18 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Computer Science 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 November 2016.
All research outputs
#12,658,728
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,413
of 4,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,836
of 415,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#22
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 415,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.