↓ Skip to main content

SInC: an accurate and fast error-model based simulator for SNPs, Indels and CNVs coupled with a read generator for short-read sequence data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
SInC: an accurate and fast error-model based simulator for SNPs, Indels and CNVs coupled with a read generator for short-read sequence data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-40
Pubmed ID
Authors

Swetansu Pattnaik, Saurabh Gupta, Arjun A Rao, Binay Panda

Abstract

The rapid advancements in the field of genome sequencing are aiding our understanding on many biological systems. In the last five years, computational biologists and bioinformatics specialists have come up with newer, better and more efficient tools towards the discovery, analysis and interpretation of different genomic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Availability of reliable simulated dataset is essential and is the first step towards testing any newly developed analytical tools for variant discovery. Although there are tools currently available that can simulate variants, none present the possibility of simulating all the three major types of variations (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, Insertions and Deletions and Copy Number Variations) and can generate reads taking a realistic error-model into consideration. Therefore, an efficient simulator and read generator is needed that can simulate variants taking the error rates of true biological samples into consideration.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Sweden 1 1%
Taiwan 1 1%
Unknown 82 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 33%
Computer Science 17 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 18%
Engineering 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 February 2014.
All research outputs
#6,131,475
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,321
of 7,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,757
of 307,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#28
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 307,208 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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 71% of its contemporaries.