↓ Skip to main content

Edge Principal Components and Squash Clustering: Using the Special Structure of Phylogenetic Placement Data for Sample Comparison

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Edge Principal Components and Squash Clustering: Using the Special Structure of Phylogenetic Placement Data for Sample Comparison
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0056859
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederick A. Matsen, Steven N. Evans

Abstract

Principal components analysis (PCA) and hierarchical clustering are two of the most heavily used techniques for analyzing the differences between nucleic acid sequence samples taken from a given environment. They have led to many insights regarding the structure of microbial communities. We have developed two new complementary methods that leverage how this microbial community data sits on a phylogenetic tree. Edge principal components analysis enables the detection of important differences between samples that contain closely related taxa. Each principal component axis is a collection of signed weights on the edges of the phylogenetic tree, and these weights are easily visualized by a suitable thickening and coloring of the edges. Squash clustering outputs a (rooted) clustering tree in which each internal node corresponds to an appropriate "average" of the original samples at the leaves below the node. Moreover, the length of an edge is a suitably defined distance between the averaged samples associated with the two incident nodes, rather than the less interpretable average of distances produced by UPGMA, the most widely used hierarchical clustering method in this context. We present these methods and illustrate their use with data from the human microbiome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 21 10%
Sweden 4 2%
Canada 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Estonia 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 170 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 33%
Researcher 61 29%
Student > Master 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 5%
Professor 10 5%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 15 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 105 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 9%
Environmental Science 15 7%
Computer Science 14 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 4%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 18 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,132,744
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#14,944
of 202,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,646
of 197,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#347
of 5,431 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 197,065 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,431 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.