↓ Skip to main content

A call for benchmarking transposable element annotation methods

Overview of attention for article published in Mobile DNA, August 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
A call for benchmarking transposable element annotation methods
Published in
Mobile DNA, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13100-015-0044-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas R. Hoen, Glenn Hickey, Guillaume Bourque, Josep Casacuberta, Richard Cordaux, Cédric Feschotte, Anna-Sophie Fiston-Lavier, Aurélie Hua-Van, Robert Hubley, Aurélie Kapusta, Emmanuelle Lerat, Florian Maumus, David D. Pollock, Hadi Quesneville, Arian Smit, Travis J. Wheeler, Thomas E. Bureau, Mathieu Blanchette

Abstract

DNA derived from transposable elements (TEs) constitutes large parts of the genomes of complex eukaryotes, with major impacts not only on genomic research but also on how organisms evolve and function. Although a variety of methods and tools have been developed to detect and annotate TEs, there are as yet no standard benchmarks-that is, no standard way to measure or compare their accuracy. This lack of accuracy assessment calls into question conclusions from a wide range of research that depends explicitly or implicitly on TE annotation. In the absence of standard benchmarks, toolmakers are impeded in improving their tools, annotators cannot properly assess which tools might best suit their needs, and downstream researchers cannot judge how accuracy limitations might impact their studies. We therefore propose that the TE research community create and adopt standard TE annotation benchmarks, and we call for other researchers to join the authors in making this long-overdue effort a success.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
Norway 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 183 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 19%
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 13 7%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 23 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 92 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 56 29%
Computer Science 11 6%
Engineering 3 2%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 25 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,625,328
of 24,787,209 outputs
Outputs from Mobile DNA
#55
of 354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,083
of 269,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mobile DNA
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,787,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 269,763 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.