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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
BLASTGrabber: a bioinformatic tool for visualization, analysis and sequence selection of massive BLAST data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-128 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ralf Stefan Neumann, Surendra Kumar, Thomas Hendricus Augustus Haverkamp, Kamran Shalchian-Tabrizi |
| Abstract |
Advances in sequencing efficiency have vastly increased the sizes of biological sequence databases, including many thousands of genome-sequenced species. The BLAST algorithm remains the main search engine for retrieving sequence information, and must consequently handle data on an unprecedented scale. This has been possible due to high-performance computers and parallel processing. However, the raw BLAST output from contemporary searches involving thousands of queries becomes ill-suited for direct human processing. Few programs attempt to directly visualize and interpret BLAST output; those that do often provide a mere basic structuring of BLAST data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| Norway | 3 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 6% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Sweden | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 127 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 43 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 69 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 13 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 12 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,105,028
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,132
of 7,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,361
of 227,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#28
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 227,397 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.