↓ Skip to main content

Difference in gene duplicability may explain the difference in overall structure of protein-protein interaction networks among eukaryotes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Difference in gene duplicability may explain the difference in overall structure of protein-protein interaction networks among eukaryotes
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, November 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-10-358
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takeshi Hase, Yoshihito Niimura, Hiroshi Tanaka

Abstract

A protein-protein interaction network (PIN) was suggested to be a disassortative network, in which interactions between high- and low-degree nodes are favored while hub-hub interactions are suppressed. It was postulated that a disassortative structure minimizes unfavorable cross-talks between different hub-centric functional modules and was positively selected in evolution. However, by re-examining yeast PIN data, several researchers reported that the disassortative structure observed in a PIN might be an experimental artifact. Therefore, the existence of a disassortative structure and its possible evolutionary mechanism remains unclear.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 10%
United Kingdom 2 5%
Canada 2 5%
Netherlands 1 2%
Pakistan 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 29 71%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 34%
Researcher 11 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 15%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Computer Science 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#817,420
of 3,627,846 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#471
of 1,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,932
of 95,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#25
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,627,846 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 63rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 95,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.