↓ Skip to main content

Investigating inter-chromosomal regulatory relationships through a comprehensive meta-analysis of matched copy number and transcriptomics data sets

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Investigating inter-chromosomal regulatory relationships through a comprehensive meta-analysis of matched copy number and transcriptomics data sets
Published in
BMC Genomics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-2100-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Newton, Lorenz Wernisch

Abstract

Gene regulatory relationships can be inferred using matched array comparative genomics and transcriptomics data sets from cancer samples. The way in which copy numbers of genes in cancer samples are often greatly disrupted works like a natural gene amplification/deletion experiment. There are now a large number of such data sets publicly available making a meta-analysis of the data possible. We infer inter-chromosomal acting gene regulatory relationships from a meta-analysis of 31 publicly available matched array comparative genomics and transcriptomics data sets in humans. We obtained statistically significant predictions of target genes for 1430 potential regulatory genes. The regulatory relationships being inferred are either direct relationships, of a transcription factor on its target, or indirect ones, through pathways containing intermediate steps. We analyse the predictions in terms of cocitations, both publications which cite a regulator with any of its inferred targets and cocitations of any genes in a target list. The most striking observation from the results is the greater number of inter-chromosomal regulatory relationships involving repression compared to those involving activation. The complete results of the meta-analysis are presented in the database METAMATCHED. We anticipate that the predictions contained in the database will be useful in informing experiments and in helping to construct networks of regulatory relationships.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 50%
Librarian 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Computer Science 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%
Other 0 0%
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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,350,522
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,694
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,065
of 386,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#286
of 388 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 386,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 388 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.