↓ Skip to main content

Novel Tools for Conservation Genomics: Comparing Two High-Throughput Approaches for SNP Discovery in the Transcriptome of the European Hake

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Novel Tools for Conservation Genomics: Comparing Two High-Throughput Approaches for SNP Discovery in the Transcriptome of the European Hake
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0028008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilaria Milano, Massimiliano Babbucci, Frank Panitz, Rob Ogden, Rasmus O. Nielsen, Martin I. Taylor, Sarah J. Helyar, Gary R. Carvalho, Montserrat Espiñeira, Miroslava Atanassova, Fausto Tinti, Gregory E. Maes, Tomaso Patarnello, Luca Bargelloni

Abstract

The growing accessibility to genomic resources using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has revolutionized the application of molecular genetic tools to ecology and evolutionary studies in non-model organisms. Here we present the case study of the European hake (Merluccius merluccius), one of the most important demersal resources of European fisheries. Two sequencing platforms, the Roche 454 FLX (454) and the Illumina Genome Analyzer (GAII), were used for Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) discovery in the hake muscle transcriptome. De novo transcriptome assembly into unique contigs, annotation, and in silico SNP detection were carried out in parallel for 454 and GAII sequence data. High-throughput genotyping using the Illumina GoldenGate assay was performed for validating 1,536 putative SNPs. Validation results were analysed to compare the performances of 454 and GAII methods and to evaluate the role of several variables (e.g. sequencing depth, intron-exon structure, sequence quality and annotation). Despite well-known differences in sequence length and throughput, the two approaches showed similar assay conversion rates (approximately 43%) and percentages of polymorphic loci (67.5% and 63.3% for GAII and 454, respectively). Both NGS platforms therefore demonstrated to be suitable for large scale identification of SNPs in transcribed regions of non-model species, although the lack of a reference genome profoundly affects the genotyping success rate. The overall efficiency, however, can be improved using strict quality and filtering criteria for SNP selection (sequence quality, intron-exon structure, target region score).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 173 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 19%
Student > Master 27 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 6%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 13 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 123 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 9%
Environmental Science 10 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 18 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,147,191
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#86,646
of 199,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,127
of 242,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#928
of 2,712 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 242,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,712 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 63% of its contemporaries.