↓ Skip to main content

trieFinder: an efficient program for annotating Digital Gene Expression (DGE) tags

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
trieFinder: an efficient program for annotating Digital Gene Expression (DGE) tags
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-329
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel Renaud, Matthew C LaFave, Jin Liang, Tyra G Wolfsberg, Shawn M Burgess

Abstract

Quantification of a transcriptional profile is a useful way to evaluate the activity of a cell at a given point in time. Although RNA-Seq has revolutionized transcriptional profiling, the costs of RNA-Seq are still significantly higher than microarrays, and often the depth of data delivered from RNA-Seq is in excess of what is needed for simple transcript quantification. Digital Gene Expression (DGE) is a cost-effective, sequence-based approach for simple transcript quantification: by sequencing one read per molecule of RNA, this technique can be used to efficiently count transcripts while obviating the need for transcript-length normalization and reducing the total numbers of reads necessary for accurate quantification. Here, we present trieFinder, a program specifically designed to rapidly map, parse, and annotate DGE tags of various lengths against cDNA and/or genomic sequence databases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 21%
Computer Science 3 16%
Engineering 2 11%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#1,171,831
of 12,378,406 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#464
of 4,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,859
of 222,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#15
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,378,406 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,542 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 222,281 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.