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 |
KGCAK: a K-mer based database for genome-wide phylogeny and complexity evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology Direct, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13062-015-0083-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dapeng Wang, Jiayue Xu, Jun Yu |
| Abstract |
The K-mer approach, treating genomic sequences as simple characters and counting the relative abundance of each string upon a fixed K, has been extensively applied to phylogeny inference for genome assembly, annotation, and comparison. To meet increasing demands for comparing large genome sequences and to promote the use of the K-mer approach, we develop a versatile database, KGCAK ( http://kgcak.big.ac.cn/KGCAK/ ), containing ~8,000 genomes that include genome sequences of diverse life forms (viruses, prokaryotes, protists, animals, and plants) and cellular organelles of eukaryotic lineages. It builds phylogeny based on genomic elements in an alignment-free fashion and provides in-depth data processing enabling users to compare the complexity of genome sequences based on K-mer distribution. We hope that KGCAK becomes a powerful tool for exploring relationship within and among groups of species in a tree of life based on genomic data. This article was reviewed by Prof Mark Ragan and Dr Yuri Wolf. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 22% |
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 2 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,180,120
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#155
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,829
of 268,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 268,266 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.