↓ Skip to main content

An ontology for major histocompatibility restriction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
An ontology for major histocompatibility restriction
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13326-016-0045-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Randi Vita, James A. Overton, Emily Seymour, John Sidney, Jim Kaufman, Rebecca L. Tallmadge, Shirley Ellis, John Hammond, Geoff W. Butcher, Alessandro Sette, Bjoern Peters

Abstract

MHC molecules are a highly diverse family of proteins that play a key role in cellular immune recognition. Over time, different techniques and terminologies have been developed to identify the specific type(s) of MHC molecule involved in a specific immune recognition context. No consistent nomenclature exists across different vertebrate species. To correctly represent MHC related data in The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB), we built upon a previously established MHC ontology and created an ontology to represent MHC molecules as they relate to immunological experiments. This ontology models MHC protein chains from 16 species, deals with different approaches used to identify MHC, such as direct sequencing verses serotyping, relates engineered MHC molecules to naturally occurring ones, connects genetic loci, alleles, protein chains and multi-chain proteins, and establishes evidence codes for MHC restriction. Where available, this work is based on existing ontologies from the OBO foundry. Overall, representing MHC molecules provides a challenging and practically important test case for ontology building, and could serve as an example of how to integrate other ontology building efforts into web resources.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Bachelor 4 25%
Researcher 2 13%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 31%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 19%
Computer Science 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
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 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,472,947
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#145
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,223
of 394,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 394,944 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.