↓ Skip to main content

A critical assessment of Mus musculus gene function prediction using integrated genomic evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
208 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
citeulike
11 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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 critical assessment of Mus musculus gene function prediction using integrated genomic evidence
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), January 2008
DOI 10.1186/gb-2008-9-s1-s2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lourdes Peña-Castillo, Murat Tasan, Chad L Myers, Hyunju Lee, Trupti Joshi, Chao Zhang, Yuanfang Guan, Michele Leone, Andrea Pagnani, Wan Kim, Chase Krumpelman, Weidong Tian, Guillaume Obozinski, Yanjun Qi, Sara Mostafavi, Guan Lin, Gabriel F Berriz, Francis D Gibbons, Gert Lanckriet, Jian Qiu, Charles Grant, Zafer Barutcuoglu, David P Hill, David Warde-Farley, Chris Grouios, Debajyoti Ray, Judith A Blake, Minghua Deng, Michael I Jordan, William S Noble, Quaid Morris, Judith Klein-Seetharaman, Ziv Bar-Joseph, Ting Chen, Fengzhu Sun, Olga G Troyanskaya, Edward M Marcotte, Dong Xu, Timothy R Hughes, Frederick P Roth

Abstract

Several years after sequencing the human genome and the mouse genome, much remains to be discovered about the functions of most human and mouse genes. Computational prediction of gene function promises to help focus limited experimental resources on the most likely hypotheses. Several algorithms using diverse genomic data have been applied to this task in model organisms; however, the performance of such approaches in mammals has not yet been evaluated.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 5%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Italy 4 2%
Brazil 3 2%
Canada 3 2%
Belgium 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 133 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 33%
Researcher 35 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Master 12 7%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 7 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 47%
Computer Science 29 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Mathematics 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 11 7%

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 20 November 2012.
All research outputs
#816,016
of 3,632,209 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#951
of 1,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,630
of 98,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#60
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,632,209 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 1,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 98,235 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 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.