↓ Skip to main content

SCOPE++: Sequence Classification Of homoPolymer Emissions

Overview of attention for article published in Genomics, August 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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
SCOPE++: Sequence Classification Of homoPolymer Emissions
Published in
Genomics, August 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.ygeno.2014.07.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

James T. Morton, Patricia Abrudan, Nathanial Figueroa, Chun Liang, John E. Karro

Abstract

mRNA polyadenylation, the addition of a poly(A) tail to the 3'-end of pre-mRNA, is a process critical to gene expression and regulation in eukaryotes. To understand the molecular mechanisms governing polyadenylation and other relevant biological processes, it is important to identify these poly(A) tails accurately in transcriptome sequencing data and differentiate them from artificial adapter sequences added in the sequencing process. But the annotation of these tails is complicated by the presence of sequencing errors and post-transcriptional modifications. While determining that a tail is present in a given transcript fragment is straight-forward, these obfuscations make the problem of boundary identification a challenge; conventional seed-and-extend algorithms struggle to accurately identify these poly(A) tail end-points. Further, all existing tools that we are aware of focus exclusively on the trimming of poly(A) tails, failing to provide the detailed information needed for studying the polyadenylation process.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Student > Master 2 20%
Professor 2 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 50%
Computer Science 2 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,697,103
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Genomics
#289
of 5,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,450
of 240,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genomics
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 240,212 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 92% of its contemporaries.