↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of Whole Genome Amplification for Sequence Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Assessment of Whole Genome Amplification for Sequence Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084785
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Hasmats, Henrik Gréen, Cedric Orear, Pierre Validire, Mikael Huss, Max Käller, Joakim Lundeberg

Abstract

Exome sequence capture and massively parallel sequencing can be combined to achieve inexpensive and rapid global analyses of the functional sections of the genome. The difficulties of working with relatively small quantities of genetic material, as may be necessary when sharing tumor biopsies between collaborators for instance, can be overcome using whole genome amplification. However, the potential drawbacks of using a whole genome amplification technology based on random primers in combination with sequence capture followed by massively parallel sequencing have not yet been examined in detail, especially in the context of mutation discovery in tumor material. In this work, we compare mutations detected in sequence data for unamplified DNA, whole genome amplified DNA, and RNA originating from the same tumor tissue samples from 16 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. The results obtained provide a comprehensive overview of the merits of these techniques for mutation analysis. We evaluated the identified genetic variants, and found that most (74%) of them were observed in both the amplified and the unamplified sequence data. Eighty-nine percent of the variations found by WGA were shared with unamplified DNA. We demonstrate a strategy for avoiding allelic bias by including RNA-sequencing information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 42%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Student > Master 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,499,159
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#54,580
of 224,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,851
of 321,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,228
of 5,386 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 321,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,386 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.