↓ Skip to main content

PhyloToAST: Bioinformatics tools for species-level analysis and visualization of complex microbial datasets

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
PhyloToAST: Bioinformatics tools for species-level analysis and visualization of complex microbial datasets
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep29123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shareef M. Dabdoub, Megan L. Fellows, Akshay D. Paropkari, Matthew R. Mason, Sarandeep S. Huja, Alexandra A. Tsigarida, Purnima S. Kumar

Abstract

The 16S rRNA gene is widely used for taxonomic profiling of microbial ecosystems; and recent advances in sequencing chemistry have allowed extremely large numbers of sequences to be generated from minimal amounts of biological samples. Analysis speed and resolution of data to species-level taxa are two important factors in large-scale explorations of complex microbiomes using 16S sequencing. We present here new software, Phylogenetic Tools for Analysis of Species-level Taxa (PhyloToAST), that completely integrates with the QIIME pipeline to improve analysis speed, reduce primer bias (requiring two sequencing primers), enhance species-level analysis, and add new visualization tools. The code is free and open source, and can be accessed at http://phylotoast.org.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 23%
Researcher 21 23%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 15%
Computer Science 6 6%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 15 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,019,800
of 16,948,032 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#9,948
of 90,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,180
of 266,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#340
of 3,054 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,948,032 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 90,548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 266,229 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,054 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.