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 |
iRegNet3D: three-dimensional integrated regulatory network for the genomic analysis of coding and non-coding disease mutations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-016-1138-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Siqi Liang, Nathaniel D. Tippens, Yaoda Zhou, Matthew Mort, Peter D. Stenson, David N. Cooper, Haiyuan Yu |
| Abstract |
The mechanistic details of most disease-causing mutations remain poorly explored within the context of regulatory networks. We present a high-resolution three-dimensional integrated regulatory network (iRegNet3D) in the form of a web tool, where we resolve the interfaces of all known transcription factor (TF)-TF, TF-DNA and chromatin-chromatin interactions for the analysis of both coding and non-coding disease-associated mutations to obtain mechanistic insights into their functional impact. Using iRegNet3D, we find that disease-associated mutations may perturb the regulatory network through diverse mechanisms including chromatin looping. iRegNet3D promises to be an indispensable tool in large-scale sequencing and disease association studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 43% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 36% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,788,920
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#2,781
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,994
of 421,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#37
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 421,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.