↓ Skip to main content

Nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods for synthetic biology biobricks’ visualization

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods for synthetic biology biobricks’ visualization
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1484-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiaoyun Yang, Haipeng Wang, Huitong Ding, Ning An, Gil Alterovitz

Abstract

Visualizing data by dimensionality reduction is an important strategy in Bioinformatics, which could help to discover hidden data properties and detect data quality issues, e.g. data noise, inappropriately labeled data, etc. As crowdsourcing-based synthetic biology databases face similar data quality issues, we propose to visualize biobricks to tackle them. However, existing dimensionality reduction methods could not be directly applied on biobricks datasets. Hereby, we use normalized edit distance to enhance dimensionality reduction methods, including Isomap and Laplacian Eigenmaps. By extracting biobricks from synthetic biology database Registry of Standard Biological Parts, six combinations of various types of biobricks are tested. The visualization graphs illustrate discriminated biobricks and inappropriately labeled biobricks. Clustering algorithm K-means is adopted to quantify the reduction results. The average clustering accuracy for Isomap and Laplacian Eigenmaps are 0.857 and 0.844, respectively. Besides, Laplacian Eigenmaps is 5 times faster than Isomap, and its visualization graph is more concentrated to discriminate biobricks. By combining normalized edit distance with Isomap and Laplacian Eigenmaps, synthetic biology biobircks are successfully visualized in two dimensional space. Various types of biobricks could be discriminated and inappropriately labeled biobricks could be determined, which could help to assess crowdsourcing-based synthetic biology databases' quality, and make biobricks selection.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Mathematics 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#19,701,336
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,534
of 7,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#317,842
of 425,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#106
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 425,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 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.