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.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
A vertebrate case study of the quality of assemblies derived from next-generation sequences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gb-2011-12-3-r31 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liang Ye, LaDeana W Hillier, Patrick Minx, Nay Thane, Devin P Locke, John C Martin, Lei Chen, Makedonka Mitreva, Jason R Miller, Kevin V Haub, David J Dooling, Elaine R Mardis, Richard K Wilson, George M Weinstock, Wesley C Warren |
| Abstract |
The unparalleled efficiency of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has prompted widespread adoption, but significant problems remain in the use of NGS data for whole genome assembly. We explore the advantages and disadvantages of chicken genome assemblies generated using a variety of sequencing and assembly methodologies. NGS assemblies are equivalent in some ways to a Sanger-based assembly yet deficient in others. Nonetheless, these assemblies are sufficient for the identification of the majority of genes and can reveal novel sequences when compared to existing assembly references. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 5% |
| France | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Sweden | 3 | 2% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Norway | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 146 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 54 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 116 | 66% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 1% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 9% |