↓ Skip to main content

Tools and best practices for data processing in allelic expression analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), September 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 (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
163 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
481 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Tools and best practices for data processing in allelic expression analysis
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13059-015-0762-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephane E. Castel, Ami Levy-Moonshine, Pejman Mohammadi, Eric Banks, Tuuli Lappalainen

Abstract

Allelic expression analysis has become important for integrating genome and transcriptome data to characterize various biological phenomena such as cis-regulatory variation and nonsense-mediated decay. We analyze the properties of allelic expression read count data and technical sources of error, such as low-quality or double-counted RNA-seq reads, genotyping errors, allelic mapping bias, and technical covariates due to sample preparation and sequencing, and variation in total read depth. We provide guidelines for correcting such errors, show that our quality control measures improve the detection of relevant allelic expression, and introduce tools for the high-throughput production of allelic expression data from RNA-sequencing data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 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 481 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 462 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 141 29%
Researcher 117 24%
Student > Master 60 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 4%
Other 69 14%
Unknown 50 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 190 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 156 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 5%
Computer Science 22 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 2%
Other 21 4%
Unknown 62 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 07 December 2018.
All research outputs
#443,463
of 15,576,492 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#388
of 3,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,929
of 248,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,576,492 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 248,144 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them