↓ Skip to main content

Automated workflow-based exploitation of pathway databases provides new insights into genetic associations of metabolite profiles

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
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
Automated workflow-based exploitation of pathway databases provides new insights into genetic associations of metabolite profiles
Published in
BMC Genomics, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-14-865
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harish Dharuri, Peter Henneman, Ayse Demirkan, Jan Bert van Klinken, Dennis Owen Mook-Kanamori, Rui Wang-Sattler, Christian Gieger, Jerzy Adamski, Kristina Hettne, Marco Roos, Karsten Suhre, Cornelia M Van Duijn, EUROSPAN consortia, Ko Willems van Dijk, Peter AC 't Hoen

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that associate with clinical phenotypes, but these SNPs usually explain just a small part of the heritability and have relatively modest effect sizes. In contrast, SNPs that associate with metabolite levels generally explain a higher percentage of the genetic variation and demonstrate larger effect sizes. Still, the discovery of SNPs associated with metabolite levels is challenging since testing all metabolites measured in typical metabolomics studies with all SNPs comes with a severe multiple testing penalty. We have developed an automated workflow approach that utilizes prior knowledge of biochemical pathways present in databases like KEGG and BioCyc to generate a smaller SNP set relevant to the metabolite. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges in the analysis of GWAS of metabolomic phenotypes and provides novel insights into the genetic basis of metabolic variation through the re-analysis of published GWAS datasets.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 4 5%
Brazil 3 4%
Switzerland 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Computer Science 6 7%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 14 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#20,264,045
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#9,273
of 10,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,380
of 307,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#378
of 450 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,648 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 307,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 450 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.