↓ Skip to main content

Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 272)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems
Published in
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1742-4682-9-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J D'Onofrio, David L Abel, Donald E Johnson

Abstract

The fields of molecular biology and computer science have cooperated over recent years to create a synergy between the cybernetic and biosemiotic relationship found in cellular genomics to that of information and language found in computational systems. Biological information frequently manifests its "meaning" through instruction or actual production of formal bio-function. Such information is called prescriptive information (PI). PI programs organize and execute a prescribed set of choices. Closer examination of this term in cellular systems has led to a dichotomy in its definition suggesting both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms are constituents of PI. This paper looks at this dichotomy as expressed in both the genetic code and in the central dogma of protein synthesis. An example of a genetic algorithm is modeled after the ribosome, and an examination of the protein synthesis process is used to differentiate PI data from PI algorithms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 9%
United States 1 9%
Unknown 9 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Librarian 1 9%
Lecturer 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 18%
Philosophy 1 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 11 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,744,557
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#23
of 272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,127
of 130,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 130,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them