| Title |
Proposed nomenclature for microhaplotypes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Genomics, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40246-016-0078-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenneth K. Kidd |
| Abstract |
Microhaplotypes are a new type of genetic marker in forensics and population genetics. A standardized nomenclature is desirable. A simple approach that does not require a central authority for approval is proposed. The nomenclature proposed follows the recommendation of the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee ( http://www.genenames.org ): "We strongly encourage naming families and groups of genes related by sequence and/or function using a "root" symbol. This is an efficient and informative way to name related genes, and already works well for a number of established gene families…" The proposal involves a simple root consisting of "mh" followed by the two-digit chromosome number and unique characters established by the authors in the initial publication. We suggest the unique symbol be an indication of the laboratory followed by characters unique to the chromosome and laboratory. For instance, the microhaplotype symbol mh01KK-001 refers to a locus on chromosome 1 published by the Kidd Lab (KK-) as their #001. Publication defines mh01KK-001 as comprised of four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs4648344, rs6663840, rs58111155, and rs6688969. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#314
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,290
of 368,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 368,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.