↓ Skip to main content

Informatics for RNA Sequencing: A Web Resource for Analysis on the Cloud

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
142 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
388 Mendeley
citeulike
8 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
Informatics for RNA Sequencing: A Web Resource for Analysis on the Cloud
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004393
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malachi Griffith, Jason R. Walker, Nicholas C. Spies, Benjamin J. Ainscough, Obi L. Griffith, Griffith, Malachi, Walker, Jason R, Spies, Nicholas C, Ainscough, Benjamin J, Griffith, Obi L

Abstract

Massively parallel RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has rapidly become the assay of choice for interrogating RNA transcript abundance and diversity. This article provides a detailed introduction to fundamental RNA-seq molecular biology and informatics concepts. We make available open-access RNA-seq tutorials that cover cloud computing, tool installation, relevant file formats, reference genomes, transcriptome annotations, quality-control strategies, expression, differential expression, and alternative splicing analysis methods. These tutorials and additional training resources are accompanied by complete analysis pipelines and test datasets made available without encumbrance at www.rnaseq.wiki.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 142 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 388 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 3%
Germany 6 2%
Brazil 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Denmark 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Czech Republic 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 13 3%
Unknown 340 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 117 30%
Researcher 96 25%
Student > Master 60 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 9%
Student > Postgraduate 21 5%
Other 59 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 207 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 93 24%
Computer Science 20 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 4%
Unspecified 12 3%
Other 40 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 13 January 2017.
All research outputs
#100,245
of 8,752,343 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#145
of 4,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,426
of 231,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#5
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,752,343 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 231,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 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 96% of its contemporaries.