↓ Skip to main content

In silico analysis identifies novel restriction enzyme combinations that expand reduced representation bisulfite sequencing CpG coverage

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
In silico analysis identifies novel restriction enzyme combinations that expand reduced representation bisulfite sequencing CpG coverage
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-7-534
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel B Martinez-Arguelles, Sunghoon Lee, Vassilios Papadopoulos

Abstract

Epigenetics is the study of gene expression changes that are not caused by changes in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence. DNA methylation is an epigenetic mark occurring in C-phosphate-G sites (CpGs) that leads to local or regional gene expression changes. Reduced-representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) is a technique that is used to ascertain the DNA methylation of millions of CpGs at single-nucleotide resolution. The genomic coverage of RRBS is given by the restriction enzyme combination used during the library preparation and the throughput capacity of the next-generation sequencer, which is used to read the generated libraries. The four-nucleotide cutters, MspI and TaqalphaI, are restriction enzymes commonly used in RRBS that, when combined, achieve ~12% genomic coverage. The increase in throughput of next-generation sequencers allows for novel combinations of restriction enzymes that provide higher CpG coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 44%
Researcher 8 19%
Other 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 23%
Mathematics 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 1 2%
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 17 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,376,056
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,013
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,492
of 230,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#89
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 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 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 230,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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.