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 |
GroopM: an automated tool for the recovery of population genomes from related metagenomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PeerJ, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.7717/peerj.603 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Imelfort, Donovan Parks, Ben J. Woodcroft, Paul Dennis, Philip Hugenholtz, Gene W. Tyson |
| Abstract |
Metagenomic binning methods that leverage differential population abundances in microbial communities (differential coverage) are emerging as a complementary approach to conventional composition-based binning. Here we introduce GroopM, an automated binning tool that primarily uses differential coverage to obtain high fidelity population genomes from related metagenomes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of GroopM using synthetic and real-world metagenomes, and show that GroopM produces results comparable with more time consuming, labor-intensive methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 31% |
| France | 3 | 8% |
| Australia | 3 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Germany | 2 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 25 | 64% |
| Members of the public | 13 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 441 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 2% |
| Brazil | 7 | 2% |
| Canada | 5 | 1% |
| Germany | 4 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 404 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 109 | 25% |
| Researcher | 92 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 59 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 4% |
| Other | 73 | 17% |
| Unknown | 57 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 169 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 86 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 28 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 28 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 40 | 9% |
| Unknown | 74 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 16 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,309,890
of 25,736,439 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#1,315
of 15,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,944
of 265,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#32
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,736,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 265,440 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.