↓ Skip to main content

An iterative approach of protein function prediction

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
9 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
An iterative approach of protein function prediction
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-12-437
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoxiao Chi, Jingyu Hou

Abstract

Current approaches of predicting protein functions from a protein-protein interaction (PPI) dataset are based on an assumption that the available functions of the proteins (a.k.a. annotated proteins) will determine the functions of the proteins whose functions are unknown yet at the moment (a.k.a. un-annotated proteins). Therefore, the protein function prediction is a mono-directed and one-off procedure, i.e. from annotated proteins to un-annotated proteins. However, the interactions between proteins are mutual rather than static and mono-directed, although functions of some proteins are unknown for some reasons at present. That means when we use the similarity-based approach to predict functions of un-annotated proteins, the un-annotated proteins, once their functions are predicted, will affect the similarities between proteins, which in turn will affect the prediction results. In other words, the function prediction is a dynamic and mutual procedure. This dynamic feature of protein interactions, however, was not considered in the existing prediction algorithms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
Brazil 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 42 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 33%
Computer Science 14 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 14%
Engineering 4 8%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 5 10%
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 12 November 2011.
All research outputs
#14,139,782
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,706
of 7,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,234
of 142,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#74
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 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 7,236 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 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 142,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.