↓ Skip to main content

DSGRN: Examining the Dynamics of Families of Logical Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
DSGRN: Examining the Dynamics of Families of Logical Models
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00549
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bree Cummins, Tomas Gedeon, Shaun Harker, Konstantin Mischaikow

Abstract

We present a computational tool DSGRN for exploring the dynamics of a network by computing summaries of the dynamics of switching models compatible with the network across all parameters. The network can arise directly from a biological problem, or indirectly as the interaction graph of a Boolean model. This tool computes a finite decomposition of parameter space such that for each region, the state transition graph that describes the coarse dynamical behavior of a network is the same. Each of these parameter regions corresponds to a different logical description of the network dynamics. The comparison of dynamics across parameters with experimental data allows the rejection of parameter regimes or entire networks as viable models for representing the underlying regulatory mechanisms. This in turn allows a search through the space of perturbations of a given network for networks that robustly fit the data. These are the first steps toward discovering a network that optimally matches the observed dynamics by searching through the space of networks.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Professor 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 25%
Mathematics 3 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Computer Science 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
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 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,522,137
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,523
of 13,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,905
of 330,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#365
of 476 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 476 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.