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 |
The cytidine deaminase under-representation reporter (CDUR) as a tool to study evolution of sequences under deaminase mutational pressure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-018-2161-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maxwell Shapiro, Stephen Meier, Thomas MacCarthy |
| Abstract |
Activation induced deaminase (AID) and apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like 3 (APOBEC3) are deaminases that mutate C to U on single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). AID is expressed primarily in germinal center B-cells, where it facilitates affinity maturation and class-switch recombination. APOBEC3 are a family of anti-viral proteins that act as part of the intrinsic immune response. In both cases, there are particular sequence motifs, also known as "mutation motifs", to which these deaminases prefer to bind and mutate. We present a program, the cytidine deaminase under-representation reporter (CDUR) designed to statistically determine whether a given sequence has an under/over-representation of these mutation motifs. CDUR shows consitency with other studies of mutation motifs, as we show by analyzing sequences from the adeno-associated virus 2 (AAV2) and human papillomavirus (HPV). Using various shuffling mechanisms to generate different null model distributions, we can tailor CDUR to correct for metrics such as GC-content, dinucleotide frequency, and codon bias. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 30% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
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 03 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,606,163
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,354
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,054
of 326,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#76
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 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 7,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 326,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.