↓ Skip to main content

Network, degeneracy and bow tie. Integrating paradigms and architectures to grasp the complexity of the immune system

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Network, degeneracy and bow tie. Integrating paradigms and architectures to grasp the complexity of the immune system
Published in
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1742-4682-7-32
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Tieri, Andrea Grignolio, Alexey Zaikin, Michele Mishto, Daniel Remondini, Gastone C Castellani, Claudio Franceschi

Abstract

Recently, the network paradigm, an application of graph theory to biology, has proven to be a powerful approach to gaining insights into biological complexity, and has catalyzed the advancement of systems biology. In this perspective and focusing on the immune system, we propose here a more comprehensive view to go beyond the concept of network. We start from the concept of degeneracy, one of the most prominent characteristic of biological complexity, defined as the ability of structurally different elements to perform the same function, and we show that degeneracy is highly intertwined with another recently-proposed organizational principle, i.e. 'bow tie architecture'. The simultaneous consideration of concepts such as degeneracy, bow tie architecture and network results in a powerful new interpretative tool that takes into account the constructive role of noise (stochastic fluctuations) and is able to grasp the major characteristics of biological complexity, i.e. the capacity to turn an apparently chaotic and highly dynamic set of signals into functional information.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nepal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 96 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Professor 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 7 7%
Other 26 26%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Computer Science 8 8%
Sports and Recreations 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 December 2023.
All research outputs
#5,195,054
of 25,006,193 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#67
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,101
of 100,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,006,193 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 100,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.