↓ Skip to main content

A model comparison study of the flowering time regulatory network in Arabidopsis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A model comparison study of the flowering time regulatory network in Arabidopsis
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1752-0509-8-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles CN Wang, Pei-Chun Chang, Ka-Lok Ng, Chun-Ming Chang, Phillip CY Sheu, Jeffrey JP Tsai

Abstract

Several dynamic models of a gene regulatory network of the light-induced floral transition process in Arabidopsis have been developed to capture the behavior of gene transcription and infer predictions based on experimental observations. It has been proven that the models can make accurate and novel predictions, which generate testable hypotheses.Two major issues were addressed in this study. First, construction of dynamic models for gene regulatory networks requires the use of mathematic modeling that comprises equations of a large number of parameters. Second, the binding mechanism of the transcription factor with DNA is another factor that requires detailed modeling. The first issue was tackled by adopting an optimization algorithm, and the second was addressed by comparing the performance of three alternative modeling approaches, namely the S-system, the Michaelis-Menten model and the Mass-action model. The efficiencies of parameter estimation and modeling performance were calculated based on least square error (O(p)), mean relative error (MRE) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 33%
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Computer Science 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 5 13%
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 11 February 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#1,004
of 1,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,274
of 329,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#34
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 329,203 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 37 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.