↓ Skip to main content

Putative synaptic genes defined from a Drosophila whole body developmental transcriptome by a machine learning approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Putative synaptic genes defined from a Drosophila whole body developmental transcriptome by a machine learning approach
Published in
BMC Genomics, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-1888-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flavio Pazos Obregón, Cecilia Papalardo, Sebastián Castro, Gustavo Guerberoff, Rafael Cantera

Abstract

Assembly and function of neuronal synapses require the coordinated expression of a yet undetermined set of genes. Although roughly a thousand genes are expected to be important for this function in Drosophila melanogaster, just a few hundreds of them are known so far. In this work we trained three learning algorithms to predict a "synaptic function" for genes of Drosophila using data from a whole-body developmental transcriptome published by others. Using statistical and biological criteria to analyze and combine the predictions, we obtained a gene catalogue that is highly enriched in genes of relevance for Drosophila synapse assembly and function but still not recognized as such. The utility of our approach is that it reduces the number of genes to be tested through hypothesis-driven experimentation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Uruguay 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 45%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 26%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#5,411,158
of 25,320,147 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#2,147
of 11,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,886
of 275,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#62
of 330 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,320,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,219 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 275,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 330 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.