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 |
Massively parallel sequencing of forensically relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms using TruSeq™ forensic amplicon
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Legal Medicine, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00414-014-1108-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David H. Warshauer, Carey P. Davis, Cydne Holt, Yonmee Han, Paulina Walichiewicz, Tom Richardson, Kathryn Stephens, Anne Jager, Jonathan King, Bruce Budowle |
| Abstract |
The TruSeq™ Forensic Amplicon library preparation protocol, originally designed to attach sequencing adapters to chromatin-bound DNA for chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (TruSeq™ ChIP-Seq), was used here to attach adapters directly to amplicons containing markers of forensic interest. In this study, the TruSeq™ Forensic Amplicon library preparation protocol was used to detect 160 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including human identification SNPs (iSNPs), ancestry, and phenotypic SNPs (apSNPs) in 12 reference samples. Results were compared with those generated by a second laboratory using the same technique, as well as to those generated by whole genome sequencing (WGS). The genotype calls made using the TruSeq™ Forensic Amplicon library preparation protocol were highly concordant. The protocol described herein represents an effective and relatively sensitive means of preparing amplified nuclear DNA for massively parallel sequencing (MPS). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 24% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 February 2015.
All research outputs
#17,732,540
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#1,261
of 2,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,140
of 362,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,061 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 362,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.