↓ Skip to main content

Network-based differential gene expression analysis suggests cell cycle related genes regulated by E2F1 underlie the molecular difference between smoker and non-smoker lung adenocarcinoma

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 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
Network-based differential gene expression analysis suggests cell cycle related genes regulated by E2F1 underlie the molecular difference between smoker and non-smoker lung adenocarcinoma
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-365
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chao Wu, Jun Zhu, Xuegong Zhang

Abstract

Differential gene expression (DGE) analysis is commonly used to reveal the deregulated molecular mechanisms of complex diseases. However, traditional DGE analysis (e.g., the t test or the rank sum test) tests each gene independently without considering interactions between them. Top-ranked differentially regulated genes prioritized by the analysis may not directly relate to the coherent molecular changes underlying complex diseases. Joint analyses of co-expression and DGE have been applied to reveal the deregulated molecular modules underlying complex diseases. Most of these methods consist of separate steps: first to identify gene-gene relationships under the studied phenotype then to integrate them with gene expression changes for prioritizing signature genes, or vice versa. It is warrant a method that can simultaneously consider gene-gene co-expression strength and corresponding expression level changes so that both types of information can be leveraged optimally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 29%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 17%
Computer Science 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 7 17%
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 19 December 2013.
All research outputs
#17,706,524
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,924
of 7,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,720
of 286,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#82
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 286,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.