↓ Skip to main content

UBCG: Up-to-date bacterial core gene set and pipeline for phylogenomic tree reconstruction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Microbiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
1006 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
275 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
UBCG: Up-to-date bacterial core gene set and pipeline for phylogenomic tree reconstruction
Published in
Journal of Microbiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12275-018-8014-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seong-In Na, Yeong Ouk Kim, Seok-Hwan Yoon, Sung-min Ha, Inwoo Baek, Jongsik Chun

Abstract

Genome-based phylogeny plays a central role in the future taxonomy and phylogenetics of Bacteria and Archaea by replacing 16S rRNA gene phylogeny. The concatenated core gene alignments are frequently used for such a purpose. The bacterial core genes are defined as single-copy, homologous genes that are present in most of the known bacterial species. There have been several studies describing such a gene set, but the number of species considered was rather small. Here we present the up-to-date bacterial core gene set, named UBCG, and software suites to accommodate necessary steps to generate and evaluate phylogenetic trees. The method was successfully used to infer phylogenomic relationship of Escherichia and related taxa and can be used for the set of genomes at any taxonomic ranks of Bacteria. The UBCG pipeline and file viewer are freely available at https://www.ezbiocloud.net/ tools/ubcg and https://www.ezbiocloud.net/tools/ubcg_viewer, respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 275 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 275 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 18%
Researcher 39 14%
Student > Master 30 11%
Student > Bachelor 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 85 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 22 8%
Environmental Science 9 3%
Engineering 4 1%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 95 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 March 2022.
All research outputs
#6,792,953
of 25,002,811 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Microbiology
#131
of 859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,062
of 335,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Microbiology
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,002,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 859 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 335,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.