↓ Skip to main content

Detection of attractors of large Boolean networks via exhaustive enumeration of appropriate subspaces of the state space

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Detection of attractors of large Boolean networks via exhaustive enumeration of appropriate subspaces of the state space
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolaos Berntenis, Martin Ebeling

Abstract

Boolean models are increasingly used to study biological signaling networks. In a Boolean network, nodes represent biological entities such as genes, proteins or protein complexes, and edges indicate activating or inhibiting influences of one node towards another. Depending on the input of activators or inhibitors, Boolean networks categorize nodes as either active or inactive. The formalism is appealing because for many biological relationships, we lack quantitative information about binding constants or kinetic parameters and can only rely on a qualitative description of the type "A activates (or inhibits) B". A central aim of Boolean network analysis is the determination of attractors (steady states and/or cycles). This problem is known to be computationally complex, its most important parameter being the number of network nodes. Various algorithms tackle it with considerable success. In this paper we present an algorithm, which extends the size of analyzable networks thanks to simple and intuitive arguments.

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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 33%
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 13 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 31%
Mathematics 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 1 2%
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 13 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,213,623
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,838
of 7,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,310
of 307,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#94
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 307,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.