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 |
Assembly and annotation of a non-model gastropod (Nerita melanotragus) transcriptome: a comparison of De novo assemblers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-7-488 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shorash Amin, Peter J Prentis, Edward K Gilding, Ana Pavasovic |
| Abstract |
The sequencing, de novo assembly and annotation of transcriptome datasets generated with next generation sequencing (NGS) has enabled biologists to answer genomic questions in non-model species with unprecedented ease. Reliable and accurate de novo assembly and annotation of transcriptomes, however, is a critically important step for transcriptome assemblies generated from short read sequences. Typical benchmarks for assembly and annotation reliability have been performed with model species. To address the reliability and accuracy of de novo transcriptome assembly in non-model species, we generated an RNAseq dataset for an intertidal gastropod mollusc species, Nerita melanotragus, and compared the assembly produced by four different de novo transcriptome assemblers; Velvet, Oases, Geneious and Trinity, for a number of quality metrics and redundancy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 3% |
| Norway | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Japan | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 95 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 65% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#1,831,719
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#219
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,725
of 229,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#12
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 229,519 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.