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 |
Phylogenetically typing bacterial strains from partial SNP genotypes observed from direct sequencing of clinical specimen metagenomic data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Medicine, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13073-015-0176-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason W. Sahl, James M. Schupp, David A. Rasko, Rebecca E. Colman, Jeffrey T. Foster, Paul Keim |
| Abstract |
We describe an approach for genotyping bacterial strains from low coverage genome datasets, including metagenomic data from complex samples. Sequence reads from unknown samples are aligned to a reference genome where the allele states of known SNPs are determined. The Whole Genome Focused Array SNP Typing (WG-FAST) pipeline can identify unknown strains with much less read data than is needed for genome assembly. To test WG-FAST, we resampled SNPs from real samples to understand the relationship between low coverage metagenomic data and accurate phylogenetic placement. WG-FAST can be downloaded from https://github.com/jasonsahl/wgfast. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| China | 1 | 10% |
| Malawi | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 27% |
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#6,083,775
of 24,593,959 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#1,016
of 1,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,311
of 271,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#25
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,593,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 271,230 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.