↓ Skip to main content

CarrierSeq: a sequence analysis workflow for low-input nanopore sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
CarrierSeq: a sequence analysis workflow for low-input nanopore sequencing
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2124-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angel Mojarro, Julie Hachey, Gary Ruvkun, Maria T. Zuber, Christopher E. Carr

Abstract

Long-read nanopore sequencing technology is of particular significance for taxonomic identification at or below the species level. For many environmental samples, the total extractable DNA is far below the current input requirements of nanopore sequencing, preventing "sample to sequence" metagenomics from low-biomass or recalcitrant samples. Here we address this problem by employing carrier sequencing, a method to sequence low-input DNA by preparing the target DNA with a genomic carrier to achieve ideal library preparation and sequencing stoichiometry without amplification. We then use CarrierSeq, a sequence analysis workflow to identify the low-input target reads from the genomic carrier. We tested CarrierSeq experimentally by sequencing from a combination of 0.2 ng Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633 DNA in a background of 1000 ng Enterobacteria phage λ DNA. After filtering of carrier, low quality, and low complexity reads, we detected target reads (B. subtilis), contamination reads, and "high quality noise reads" (HQNRs) not mapping to the carrier, target or known lab contaminants. These reads appear to be artifacts of the nanopore sequencing process as they are associated with specific channels (pores). By treating sequencing as a Poisson arrival process, we implement a statistical test to reject data from channels dominated by HQNRs while retaining low-input target reads.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 26%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 26%
Engineering 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 14 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,456,241
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#728
of 7,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,898
of 331,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#11
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 331,235 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 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 91% of its contemporaries.