↓ Skip to main content

Candidate prioritization for low-abundant differentially expressed proteins in 2D-DIGE datasets

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2015
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
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Candidate prioritization for low-abundant differentially expressed proteins in 2D-DIGE datasets
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0455-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Umesh K Nandal, Wytze J Vlietstra, Carsten Byrman, Rienk E Jeeninga, Jeffrey H Ringrose, Antoine HC van Kampen, Dave Speijer, Perry D Moerland

Abstract

BackgroundTwo-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) provides a powerful technique to separate proteins on their isoelectric point and apparent molecular mass and quantify changes in protein expression. Abundantly available proteins in spots can be identified using mass spectrometry-based approaches. However, identification is often not possible for low-abundant proteins.ResultsWe present a novel computational approach to prioritize candidate proteins for unidentified spots. Our approach exploits noisy information on the isoelectric point and apparent molecular mass of a protein spot in combination with functional similarities of candidate proteins to already identified proteins to select and rank candidates. We evaluated our method on a 2D-DIGE dataset comparing protein expression in uninfected and HIV-1 infected T-cells. Using leave-one-out cross-validation, we show that the true-positive rate for the top-5 ranked proteins is 43.8%.ConclusionsOur approach shows good performance on a 2D-DIGE dataset comparing protein expression in uninfected and HIV-1 infected T-cells. We expect our method to be highly useful in (re-)mining other 2D-DIGE experiments in which especially the low-abundant protein spots remain to be identified.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Master 2 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 4 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
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 20 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,795,365
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,037
of 7,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,826
of 352,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#85
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,277 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 352,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.