↓ Skip to main content

Weighted protein residue networks based on joint recurrences between residues

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Weighted protein residue networks based on joint recurrences between residues
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0621-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wael I. Karain, Nael I. Qaraeen

Abstract

Weighted and un-weighted protein residue networks can predict key functional residues in proteins based on the closeness centrality C and betweenness centrality B values for each residue. A static snapshot of the protein structure, and a cutoff distance, are used to define edges between the network nodes. In this work we apply the weighted network approach to study the β-Lactamase Inhibitory Protein (BLIP). Joint recurrences extracted from molecular dynamics MD trajectory positions of the protein residue carbon alpha atoms are used to define edge weights between nodes, and no cutoff distance is used. The results for B and C from our approach are compared with those extracted from an un-weighted network, and a weighted network that uses interatomic contacts to define edge weights between nodes, respectively. The joint recurrence weighted network approach performs well in pointing out key protein residues. Furthermore, it seems to emphasize residues with medium to high relative solvent accessibility that lie in loop regions between secondary structure elements of the protein. Protein residue networks that use joint recurrences extracted from molecular dynamics simulations of a solvated protein perform well in pointing to hotspot residues and hotspot clusters. This approach uses no distance cutoff threshold, and does not exclude any interactions between the residues, including water-mediated interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Cuba 1 5%
Greece 1 5%
Unknown 17 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 37%
Computer Science 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,226,014
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,721
of 7,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,352
of 266,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#87
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 266,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.