| Title |
Assessment of de novoassemblers for draft genomes: a case study with fungal genomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-15-s9-s10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mostafa M Abbas, Qutaibah M Malluhi, Ponnuraman Balakrishnan |
| Abstract |
Recently, large bio-projects dealing with the release of different genomes have transpired. Most of these projects use next-generation sequencing platforms. As a consequence, many de novo assembly tools have evolved to assemble the reads generated by these platforms. Each tool has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages, which make the selection of an appropriate tool a challenging task. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 2 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| France | 3 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 54 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 13% |
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 16 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,686,954
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,279
of 11,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,361
of 369,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#41
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 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 11,305 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 369,980 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 307 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.