↓ Skip to main content

Beginner’s guide to comparative bacterial genome analysis using next-generation sequence data

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Informatics and Experimentation, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
59 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2059 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Beginner’s guide to comparative bacterial genome analysis using next-generation sequence data
Published in
Microbial Informatics and Experimentation, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/2042-5783-3-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J Edwards, Kathryn E Holt

Abstract

High throughput sequencing is now fast and cheap enough to be considered part of the toolbox for investigating bacteria, and there are thousands of bacterial genome sequences available for comparison in the public domain. Bacterial genome analysis is increasingly being performed by diverse groups in research, clinical and public health labs alike, who are interested in a wide array of topics related to bacterial genetics and evolution. Examples include outbreak analysis and the study of pathogenicity and antimicrobial resistance. In this beginner's guide, we aim to provide an entry point for individuals with a biology background who want to perform their own bioinformatics analysis of bacterial genome data, to enable them to answer their own research questions. We assume readers will be familiar with genetics and the basic nature of sequence data, but do not assume any computer programming skills. The main topics covered are assembly, ordering of contigs, annotation, genome comparison and extracting common typing information. Each section includes worked examples using publicly available E. coli data and free software tools, all which can be performed on a desktop computer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 2,059 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 31 2%
United Kingdom 12 <1%
Germany 11 <1%
Brazil 11 <1%
Australia 5 <1%
India 5 <1%
Sweden 5 <1%
South Africa 5 <1%
Chile 4 <1%
Other 58 3%
Unknown 1912 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 514 25%
Researcher 431 21%
Student > Master 308 15%
Student > Bachelor 197 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 119 6%
Other 313 15%
Unknown 177 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 992 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 366 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 146 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 85 4%
Computer Science 51 2%
Other 198 10%
Unknown 221 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#842,129
of 25,168,110 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Informatics and Experimentation
#3
of 15 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,823
of 205,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Informatics and Experimentation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,168,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one scored the same or higher as 12 of them.
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 205,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them