↓ Skip to main content

Increasing Sequence Search Sensitivity with Transitive Alignments

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2013
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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Title
Increasing Sequence Search Sensitivity with Transitive Alignments
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0054422
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ketil Malde, Tomasz Furmanek

Abstract

Sequence alignment is an important bioinformatics tool for identifying homology, but searching against the full set of available sequences is likely to result in many hits to poorly annotated sequences providing very little information. Consequently, we often want alignments against a specific subset of sequences: for instance, we are looking for sequences from a particular species, sequences that have known 3d-structures, sequences that have a reliable (curated) function annotation, and so on. Although such subset databases are readily available, they only represent a small fraction of all sequences. Thus, the likelihood of finding close homologs for query sequences is smaller, and the alignments will in general have lower scores. This makes it difficult to distinguish hits to homologous sequences from random hits to unrelated sequences. Here, we propose a method that addresses this problem by first aligning query sequences against a large database representing the corpus of known sequences, and then constructing indirect (or transitive) alignments by combining the results with alignments from the large database against the desired target database. We compare the results to direct pairwise alignments, and show that our method gives us higher sensitivity alignments against the target database.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 13%
United States 1 13%
Unknown 6 75%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 50%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 25%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 October 2013.
All research outputs
#4,668,826
of 25,410,626 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#80,785
of 221,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,314
of 296,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,160
of 5,179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,410,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 221,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 296,737 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 5,179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.