You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Two Low Coverage Bird Genomes and a Comparison of Reference-Guided versus De Novo Genome Assemblies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0106649 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daren C. Card, Drew R. Schield, Jacobo Reyes-Velasco, Matthew K. Fujita, Audra L. Andrew, Sara J. Oyler-McCance, Jennifer A. Fike, Diana F. Tomback, Robert P. Ruggiero, Todd A. Castoe |
| Abstract |
As a greater number and diversity of high-quality vertebrate reference genomes become available, it is increasingly feasible to use these references to guide new draft assemblies for related species. Reference-guided assembly approaches may substantially increase the contiguity and completeness of a new genome using only low levels of genome coverage that might otherwise be insufficient for de novo genome assembly. We used low-coverage (∼3.5-5.5x) Illumina paired-end sequencing to assemble draft genomes of two bird species (the Gunnison Sage-Grouse, Centrocercus minimus, and the Clark's Nutcracker, Nucifraga columbiana). We used these data to estimate de novo genome assemblies and reference-guided assemblies, and compared the information content and completeness of these assemblies by comparing CEGMA gene set representation, repeat element content, simple sequence repeat content, and GC isochore structure among assemblies. Our results demonstrate that even lower-coverage genome sequencing projects are capable of producing informative and useful genomic resources, particularly through the use of reference-guided assemblies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 3 | 43% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 86% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 26% |
| Researcher | 26 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 63% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | <1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
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 12 May 2023.
All research outputs
#6,834,140
of 24,776,799 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#91,813
of 214,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,828
of 244,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,504
of 5,033 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,776,799 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 214,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 244,047 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,033 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 69% of its contemporaries.