↓ Skip to main content

TF-finder: A software package for identifying transcription factors involved in biological processes using microarray data and existing knowledge base

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
TF-finder: A software package for identifying transcription factors involved in biological processes using microarray data and existing knowledge base
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-11-425
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoqi Cui, Tong Wang, Huann-Sheng Chen, Victor Busov, Hairong Wei

Abstract

Identification of transcription factors (TFs) involved in a biological process is the first step towards a better understanding of the underlying regulatory mechanisms. However, due to the involvement of a large number of genes and complicated interactions in a gene regulatory network (GRN), identification of the TFs involved in a biology process remains to be very challenging. In reality, the recognition of TFs for a given a biological process can be further complicated by the fact that most eukaryotic genomes encode thousands of TFs, which are organized in gene families of various sizes and in many cases with poor sequence conservation except for small conserved domains. This poses a significant challenge for identification of the exact TFs involved or ranking the importance of a set of TFs to a process of interest. Therefore, new methods for recognizing novel TFs are desperately needed. Although a plethora of methods have been developed to infer regulatory genes using microarray data, it is still rare to find the methods that use existing knowledge base in particular the validated genes known to be involved in a process to bait/guide discovery of novel TFs. Such methods can replace the sometimes-arbitrary process of selection of candidate genes for experimental validation and significantly advance our knowledge and understanding of the regulation of a process.

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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 8%
France 2 3%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 60 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 26%
Researcher 18 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Professor 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 62%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Computer Science 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 3 4%
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 24 September 2012.
All research outputs
#15,251,976
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,359
of 7,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,194
of 94,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#40
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 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 7,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 94,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.