↓ Skip to main content

Factors affecting interactome-based prediction of human genes associated with clinical signs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Factors affecting interactome-based prediction of human genes associated with clinical signs
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1754-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara González-Pérez, Florencio Pazos, Mónica Chagoyen

Abstract

Clinical signs are a fundamental aspect of human pathologies. While disease diagnosis is problematic or impossible in many cases, signs are easier to perceive and categorize. Clinical signs are increasingly used, together with molecular networks, to prioritize detected variants in clinical genomics pipelines, even if the patient is still undiagnosed. Here we analyze the ability of these network-based methods to predict genes that underlie clinical signs from the human interactome. Our analysis reveals that these approaches can locate genes associated with clinical signs with variable performance that depends on the sign and associated disease. We analyzed several clinical and biological factors that explain these variable results, including number of genes involved (mono- vs. oligogenic diseases), mode of inheritance, type of clinical sign and gene product function. Our results indicate that the characteristics of the clinical signs and their related diseases should be considered for interpreting the results of network-prediction methods, such as those aimed at discovering disease-related genes and variants. These results are important due the increasing use of clinical signs as an alternative to diseases for studying the molecular basis of human pathologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 36%
Other 1 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 18%
Computer Science 1 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 27%
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 19 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,072,753
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,494
of 7,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,513
of 283,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#44
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,309 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 283,559 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 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.