↓ Skip to main content

ADEPT, a dynamic next generation sequencing data error-detection program with trimming

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
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
ADEPT, a dynamic next generation sequencing data error-detection program with trimming
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-0967-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shihai Feng, Chien-Chi Lo, Po-E Li, Patrick S. G. Chain

Abstract

Illumina is the most widely used next generation sequencing technology and produces millions of short reads that contain errors. These sequencing errors constitute a major problem in applications such as de novo genome assembly, metagenomics analysis and single nucleotide polymorphism discovery. In this study, we present ADEPT, a dynamic error detection method, based on the quality scores of each nucleotide and its neighboring nucleotides, together with their positions within the read and compares this to the position-specific quality score distribution of all bases within the sequencing run. This method greatly improves upon other available methods in terms of the true positive rate of error discovery without affecting the false positive rate, particularly within the middle of reads. ADEPT is the only tool to date that dynamically assesses errors within reads by comparing position-specific and neighboring base quality scores with the distribution of quality scores for the dataset being analyzed. The result is a method that is less prone to position-dependent under-prediction, which is one of the most prominent issues in error prediction. The outcome is that ADEPT improves upon prior efforts in identifying true errors, primarily within the middle of reads, while reducing the false positive rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 5%
United States 1 3%
France 1 3%
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 32 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 32%
Researcher 11 30%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 27%
Computer Science 6 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 3%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,067,425
of 24,965,047 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#477
of 7,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,403
of 303,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#17
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,965,047 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 303,617 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.