↓ Skip to main content

Systematic inference identifies a major source of heterogeneity in cell signaling dynamics: The rate-limiting step number

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, March 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Systematic inference identifies a major source of heterogeneity in cell signaling dynamics: The rate-limiting step number
Published in
Science Advances, March 2022
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.abl4598
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dae Wook Kim, Hyukpyo Hong, Jae Kyoung Kim

Abstract

Identifying the sources of cell-to-cell variability in signaling dynamics is essential to understand drug response variability and develop effective therapeutics. However, it is challenging because not all signaling intermediate reactions can be experimentally measured simultaneously. This can be overcome by replacing them with a single random time delay, but the resulting process is non-Markovian, making it difficult to infer cell-to-cell heterogeneity in reaction rates and time delays. To address this, we developed an efficient and scalable moment-based Bayesian inference method (MBI) with a user-friendly computational package that infers cell-to-cell heterogeneity in the non-Markovian signaling process. We applied MBI to single-cell expression profiles from promoters responding to antibiotics and discovered a major source of cell-to-cell variability in antibiotic stress response: the number of rate-limiting steps in signaling cascades. This knowledge can help identify effective therapies that destroy all pathogenic or cancer cells, and the approach can be applied to precision medicine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 1 5%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 32%
Mathematics 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#852,033
of 23,466,057 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#4,686
of 10,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,367
of 469,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#216
of 548 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,466,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 469,532 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 548 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 60% of its contemporaries.