↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL)

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 5: Selecting markers and evaluating coverage.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.
Chapter title
Selecting markers and evaluating coverage.
Chapter number 5
Book title
Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL)
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-785-9_5
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-61779-784-2, 978-1-61779-785-9
Authors

Matthew A. Cleveland, Nader Deeb

Editors

Scott A. Rifkin

Abstract

The availability of genetic markers in many species has enabled the analysis of marker-trait associations ranging from small genomic regions to genome-wide scale. An appropriate set of markers must be identified to meet the objectives of any research, using a custom discovery and selection approach or by using a commercial product. The key considerations in selecting markers are the quantity and the distribution across the genome. Though decisions about how many markers to use are often pragmatic, influenced by costs and available technology, an evaluation of the marker coverage is important in understanding how to design an effective genomic research study with reasonable expectations about the power to obtain desired results. An important parameter to evaluate coverage is linkage disequilibrium, which can be used to determine the appropriate number of markers for a particular analysis and is related to the proportion of variance that can be explained by a given marker, or power. Finally, the type of analysis used to identify marker-trait associations may depend on marker coverage as the optimal approach, from a statistical or computational standpoint, may differ with changes in marker number and distribution.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 57%
Student > Master 3 21%
Researcher 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 64%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 May 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,773
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,815
of 13,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,896
of 160,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#34
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,025 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 160,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.