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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of Two Massively Parallel Sequencing Platforms using 83 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms for Human Identification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-017-00510-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dame Loveliness T. Apaga, Sheila E. Dennis, Jazelyn M. Salvador, Gayvelline C. Calacal, Maria Corazon A. De Ungria |
| Abstract |
The potential of Massively Parallel Sequencing (MPS) technology to vastly expand the capabilities of human identification led to the emergence of different MPS platforms that use forensically relevant genetic markers. Two of the MPS platforms that are currently available are the MiSeq(®) FGx™ Forensic Genomics System (Illumina) and the HID-Ion Personal Genome Machine (PGM)™ (Thermo Fisher Scientific). These are coupled with the ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep kit (Illumina) and the HID-Ion AmpliSeq™ Identity Panel (Thermo Fisher Scientific), respectively. In this study, we compared the genotyping performance of the two MPS systems based on 83 SNP markers that are present in both MPS marker panels. Results show that MiSeq(®) FGx™ has greater sample-to-sample variation than the HID-Ion PGM™ in terms of read counts for all the 83 SNP markers. Allele coverage ratio (ACR) values show generally balanced heterozygous reads for both platforms. Two and four SNP markers from the MiSeq(®) FGx™ and HID-Ion PGM™, respectively, have average ACR values lower than the recommended value of 0.67. Comparison of genotype calls showed 99.7% concordance between the two platforms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,928,316
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#72,748
of 123,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,627
of 309,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,551
of 4,406 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 309,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,406 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.