↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Genomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 9: Genome Rearrangement Analysis: Cut and Join Genome Rearrangements and Gene Cluster Preserving Approaches
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Genome Rearrangement Analysis: Cut and Join Genome Rearrangements and Gene Cluster Preserving Approaches
Chapter number 9
Book title
Comparative Genomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7463-4_9
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7461-0, 978-1-4939-7463-4
Authors

Tom Hartmann, Martin Middendorf, Matthias Bernt, Hartmann, Tom, Middendorf, Martin, Bernt, Matthias

Abstract

Genome rearrangements are mutations that change the gene content of a genome or the arrangement of the genes on a genome. Several years of research on genome rearrangements have established different algorithmic approaches for solving some fundamental problems in comparative genomics based on gene order information. This review summarizes the literature on genome rearrangement analysis along two lines of research. The first line considers rearrangement models that are particularly well suited for a theoretical analysis. These models use rearrangement operations that cut chromosomes into fragments and then join the fragments into new chromosomes. The second line works with rearrangement models that reflect several biologically motivated constraints, e.g., the constraint that gene clusters have to be preserved. In this chapter, the border between algorithmically "easy" and "hard" rearrangement problems is sketched and a brief review is given on the available software tools for genome rearrangement analysis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor 1 4%
Researcher 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 24%
Computer Science 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Unknown 12 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,222,450
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#1,139
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,797
of 442,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#95
of 1,498 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 442,345 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,498 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 92% of its contemporaries.