↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Genomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 8: Comparative Metagenomics
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
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.
Chapter title
Comparative Metagenomics
Chapter number 8
Book title
Comparative Genomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7463-4_8
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7461-0, 978-1-4939-7463-4
Authors

Andrew Maltez Thomas, Felipe Prata Lima, Livia Maria Silva Moura, Aline Maria da Silva, Emmanuel Dias-Neto, João C. Setubal

Abstract

Thanks in large part to newer, better, and cheaper DNA sequencing technologies, an enormous number of metagenomic sequence datasets have been and continue to be generated, covering a huge variety of environmental niches, including several different human body sites. Comparing these metagenomes and identifying their commonalities and differences is a challenging task, due not only to the large amounts of data, but also because there are several methodological considerations that need to be taken into account to ensure an appropriate and sound comparison between datasets. In this chapter, we describe current techniques aimed at comparing metagenomes generated by 16S ribosomal RNA and shotgun DNA sequencing, emphasizing methodological issues that arise in these comparative studies. We provide a detailed case study to illustrate some of these techniques using data from the Human Microbiome Project comparing the microbial communities from ten buccal mucosa samples with ten tongue dorsum samples in terms of alpha diversity, beta diversity, and their taxonomic and functional profiles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Professor 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Computer Science 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,680,929
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#504
of 13,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,608
of 444,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#28
of 1,485 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 444,852 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,485 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 98% of its contemporaries.