↓ Skip to main content

Computational methods for predicting genomic islands in microbial genomes

Overview of attention for article published in Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, May 2016
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Computational methods for predicting genomic islands in microbial genomes
Published in
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.csbj.2016.05.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Clusters of genes acquired by lateral gene transfer in microbial genomes, are broadly referred to as genomic islands (GIs). GIs often carry genes important for genome evolution and adaptation to niches, such as genes involved in pathogenesis and antibiotic resistance. Therefore, GI prediction has gradually become an important part of microbial genome analysis. Despite inherent difficulties in identifying GIs, many computational methods have been developed and show good performance. In this mini-review, we first summarize the general challenges in predicting GIs. Then we group existing GI detection methods by their input, briefly describe representative methods in each group, and discuss their advantages as well as limitations. Finally, we look into the potential improvements for better GI prediction.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 19%
Student > Bachelor 23 16%
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 31%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 8%
Computer Science 8 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 26 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,227,720
of 32,624,845 outputs
Outputs from Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
#304
of 3,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,975
of 334,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,624,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 334,795 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.