↓ Skip to main content

Constructing gene co-expression networks and predicting functions of unknown genes by random matrix theory

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
274 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
connotea
2 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
Constructing gene co-expression networks and predicting functions of unknown genes by random matrix theory
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-8-299
Pubmed ID
Authors

Feng Luo, Yunfeng Yang, Jianxin Zhong, Haichun Gao, Latifur Khan, Dorothea K Thompson, Jizhong Zhou

Abstract

Large-scale sequencing of entire genomes has ushered in a new age in biology. One of the next grand challenges is to dissect the cellular networks consisting of many individual functional modules. Defining co-expression networks without ambiguity based on genome-wide microarray data is difficult and current methods are not robust and consistent with different data sets. This is particularly problematic for little understood organisms since not much existing biological knowledge can be exploited for determining the threshold to differentiate true correlation from random noise. Random matrix theory (RMT), which has been widely and successfully used in physics, is a powerful approach to distinguish system-specific, non-random properties embedded in complex systems from random noise. Here, we have hypothesized that the universal predictions of RMT are also applicable to biological systems and the correlation threshold can be determined by characterizing the correlation matrix of microarray profiles using random matrix theory.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 274 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 4%
Germany 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 247 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 74 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 22%
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 5%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 25 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 128 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 9%
Computer Science 25 9%
Environmental Science 12 4%
Physics and Astronomy 11 4%
Other 41 15%
Unknown 31 11%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,652,891
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,072
of 7,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,814
of 68,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#15
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 68,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.