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 |
Comparison of library preparation methods reveals their impact on interpretation of metatranscriptomic data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-15-912 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adriana Alberti, Caroline Belser, Stéfan Engelen, Laurie Bertrand, Céline Orvain, Laura Brinas, Corinne Cruaud, Laurène Giraut, Corinne Da Silva, Cyril Firmo, Jean-Marc Aury, Patrick Wincker |
| Abstract |
Metatranscriptomics is rapidly expanding our knowledge of gene expression patterns and pathway dynamics in natural microbial communities. However, to cope with the challenges of environmental sampling, various rRNA removal and cDNA synthesis methods have been applied in published microbial metatranscriptomic studies, making comparisons arduous. Whereas efficiency and biases introduced by rRNA removal methods have been relatively well explored, the impact of cDNA synthesis and library preparation on transcript abundance remains poorly characterized. The evaluation of potential biases introduced at this step is challenging for metatranscriptomic samples, where data analyses are complex, for example because of the lack of reference genomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Belgium | 1 | 10% |
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| France | 3 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 212 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 60 | 26% |
| Researcher | 55 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 39 | 17% |
| Unknown | 32 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 85 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 43 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 14 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 14 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,280,614
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#589
of 11,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,813
of 272,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#20
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 272,378 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 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 93% of its contemporaries.