↓ Skip to main content

Comparative network stratification analysis for identifying functional interpretable network biomarkers

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Comparative network stratification analysis for identifying functional interpretable network biomarkers
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1462-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chuanchao Zhang, Juan Liu, Qianqian Shi, Tao Zeng, Luonan Chen

Abstract

A major challenge of bioinformatics in the era of precision medicine is to identify the molecular biomarkers for complex diseases. It is a general expectation that these biomarkers or signatures have not only strong discrimination ability, but also readable interpretations in a biological sense. Generally, the conventional expression-based or network-based methods mainly capture differential genes or differential networks as biomarkers, however, such biomarkers only focus on phenotypic discrimination and usually have less biological or functional interpretation. Meanwhile, the conventional function-based methods could consider the biomarkers corresponding to certain biological functions or pathways, but ignore the differential information of genes, i.e., disregard the active degree of particular genes involved in particular functions, thereby resulting in less discriminative ability on phenotypes. Hence, it is strongly demanded to develop elaborate computational methods to directly identify functional network biomarkers with both discriminative power on disease states and readable interpretation on biological functions. In this paper, we present a new computational framework based on an integer programming model, named as Comparative Network Stratification (CNS), to extract functional or interpretable network biomarkers, which are of strongly discriminative power on disease states and also readable interpretation on biological functions. In addition, CNS can not only recognize the pathogen biological functions disregarded by traditional Expression-based/Network-based methods, but also uncover the active network-structures underlying such dysregulated functions underestimated by traditional Function-based methods. To validate the effectiveness, we have compared CNS with five state-of-the-art methods, i.e. GSVA, Pathifier, stSVM, frSVM and AEP on four datasets of different complex diseases. The results show that CNS can enhance the discriminative power of network biomarkers, and further provide biologically interpretable information or disease pathogenic mechanism of these biomarkers. A case study on type 1 diabetes (T1D) demonstrates that CNS can identify many dysfunctional genes and networks previously disregarded by conventional approaches. Therefore, CNS is actually a powerful bioinformatics tool, which can identify functional or interpretable network biomarkers with both discriminative power on disease states and readable interpretation on biological functions. CNS was implemented as a Matlab package, which is available at http://www.sysbio.ac.cn/cb/chenlab/images/CNSpackage_0.1.rar .

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,858,845
of 26,374,136 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,547
of 7,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,496
of 326,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#62
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,374,136 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 326,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.