↓ Skip to main content

Flow Cytometry Bioinformatics

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
352 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
Flow Cytometry Bioinformatics
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003365
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kieran O'Neill, Nima Aghaeepour, Josef Špidlen, Ryan Brinkman

Abstract

Flow cytometry bioinformatics is the application of bioinformatics to flow cytometry data, which involves storing, retrieving, organizing, and analyzing flow cytometry data using extensive computational resources and tools. Flow cytometry bioinformatics requires extensive use of and contributes to the development of techniques from computational statistics and machine learning. Flow cytometry and related methods allow the quantification of multiple independent biomarkers on large numbers of single cells. The rapid growth in the multidimensionality and throughput of flow cytometry data, particularly in the 2000s, has led to the creation of a variety of computational analysis methods, data standards, and public databases for the sharing of results. Computational methods exist to assist in the preprocessing of flow cytometry data, identifying cell populations within it, matching those cell populations across samples, and performing diagnosis and discovery using the results of previous steps. For preprocessing, this includes compensating for spectral overlap, transforming data onto scales conducive to visualization and analysis, assessing data for quality, and normalizing data across samples and experiments. For population identification, tools are available to aid traditional manual identification of populations in two-dimensional scatter plots (gating), to use dimensionality reduction to aid gating, and to find populations automatically in higher dimensional space in a variety of ways. It is also possible to characterize data in more comprehensive ways, such as the density-guided binary space partitioning technique known as probability binning, or by combinatorial gating. Finally, diagnosis using flow cytometry data can be aided by supervised learning techniques, and discovery of new cell types of biological importance by high-throughput statistical methods, as part of pipelines incorporating all of the aforementioned methods. Open standards, data, and software are also key parts of flow cytometry bioinformatics. Data standards include the widely adopted Flow Cytometry Standard (FCS) defining how data from cytometers should be stored, but also several new standards under development by the International Society for Advancement of Cytometry (ISAC) to aid in storing more detailed information about experimental design and analytical steps. Open data is slowly growing with the opening of the CytoBank database in 2010 and FlowRepository in 2012, both of which allow users to freely distribute their data, and the latter of which has been recommended as the preferred repository for MIFlowCyt-compliant data by ISAC. Open software is most widely available in the form of a suite of Bioconductor packages, but is also available for web execution on the GenePattern platform.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 352 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 333 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 87 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 19%
Student > Master 48 14%
Student > Bachelor 35 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 50 14%
Unknown 49 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 91 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 33 9%
Computer Science 21 6%
Other 53 15%
Unknown 60 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 27 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,041,191
of 25,800,372 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#805
of 9,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,834
of 322,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#12
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,800,372 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 9,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 322,472 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 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 91% of its contemporaries.