↓ Skip to main content

A maximum-likelihood approach for building cell-type trees by lifting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
A maximum-likelihood approach for building cell-type trees by lifting
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-2297-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nishanth Ulhas Nair, Laura Hunter, Mingfu Shao, Paulina Grnarova, Yu Lin, Philipp Bucher, Bernard M. E. Moret

Abstract

In cell differentiation, a less specialized cell differentiates into a more specialized one, even though all cells in one organism have (almost) the same genome. Epigenetic factors such as histone modifications are known to play a significant role in cell differentiation. We previously introduce cell-type trees to represent the differentiation of cells into more specialized types, a representation that partakes of both ontogeny and phylogeny. We propose a maximum-likelihood (ML) approach to build cell-type trees and show that this ML approach outperforms our earlier distance-based and parsimony-based approaches. We then study the reconstruction of ancestral cell types; since both ancestral and derived cell types can coexist in adult organisms, we propose a lifting algorithm to infer internal nodes. We present results on our lifting algorithm obtained both through simulations and on real datasets. We show that our ML-based approach outperforms previously proposed techniques such as distance-based and parsimony-based methods. We show our lifting-based approach works well on both simulated and real data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 6%
Brazil 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 41%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 24%
Computer Science 1 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#12,943,390
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,569
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,914
of 394,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#101
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 394,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.