↓ Skip to main content

Alternative expression analysis by RNA sequencing.

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Methods, September 2010
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

3 blogs
4 Q&A threads

Readers on

458 Mendeley
18 CiteULike
2 Connotea
Alternative expression analysis by RNA sequencing.
Published in
Nature Methods, September 2010
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.1503
Pubmed ID

Malachi Griffith, Obi L Griffith, Jill Mwenifumbo, Rodrigo Goya, A Sorana Morrissy, Ryan D Morin, Richard Corbett, Michelle J Tang, Ying-Chen Hou, Trevor J Pugh, Gordon Robertson, Suganthi Chittaranjan, Adrian Ally, Jennifer K Asano, Susanna Y Chan, Haiyan I Li, Helen McDonald, Kevin Teague, Yongjun Zhao, Thomas Zeng, Allen Delaney, Martin Hirst, Gregg B Morin, Steven J M Jones, Isabella T Tai, Marco A Marra


In alternative expression analysis by sequencing (ALEXA-seq), we developed a method to analyze massively parallel RNA sequence data to catalog transcripts and assess differential and alternative expression of known and predicted mRNA isoforms in cells and tissues. As proof of principle, we used the approach to compare fluorouracil-resistant and -nonresistant human colorectal cancer cell lines. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the approach by comparison to exon tiling and splicing microarrays and validated the results with reverse transcription-PCR, quantitative PCR and Sanger sequencing. We observed global disruption of splicing in fluorouracil-resistant cells characterized by expression of new mRNA isoforms resulting from exon skipping, alternative splice site usage and intron retention. Alternative expression annotation databases, source code, a data viewer and other resources to facilitate analysis are available at http://www.alexaplatform.org/alexa_seq/.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 458 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 26 6%
Germany 10 2%
United Kingdom 7 2%
Brazil 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 12 3%
Unknown 386 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 154 34%
Researcher 125 27%
Student > Master 43 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 31 7%
Other 22 5%
Other 83 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 305 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 7%
Computer Science 25 5%
Unspecified 17 4%
Other 33 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
of 8,575,657 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
of 2,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 74,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,575,657 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 2,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 74,912 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 58 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.