↓ Skip to main content

Empirical methods for controlling false positives and estimating confidence in ChIP-Seq peaks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
citeulike
23 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
Empirical methods for controlling false positives and estimating confidence in ChIP-Seq peaks
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-9-523
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A Nix, Samir J Courdy, Kenneth M Boucher

Abstract

High throughput signature sequencing holds many promises, one of which is the ready identification of in vivo transcription factor binding sites, histone modifications, changes in chromatin structure and patterns of DNA methylation across entire genomes. In these experiments, chromatin immunoprecipitation is used to enrich for particular DNA sequences of interest and signature sequencing is used to map the regions to the genome (ChIP-Seq). Elucidation of these sites of DNA-protein binding/modification are proving instrumental in reconstructing networks of gene regulation and chromatin remodelling that direct development, response to cellular perturbation, and neoplastic transformation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 15 7%
United Kingdom 5 2%
Germany 4 2%
China 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 189 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 70 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 29%
Student > Master 25 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 7%
Professor 14 6%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 5 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 155 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 13%
Computer Science 15 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 11 5%
Unknown 8 3%

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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#2,015,672
of 3,630,112 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,584
of 2,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,154
of 57,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#48
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,630,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,289 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 57,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.