↓ Skip to main content

Reevaluating Assembly Evaluations with Feature Response Curves: GAGE and Assemblathons

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
5 blogs
twitter
34 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
citeulike
9 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
Reevaluating Assembly Evaluations with Feature Response Curves: GAGE and Assemblathons
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0052210
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Vezzi, Giuseppe Narzisi, Bud Mishra

Abstract

In just the last decade, a multitude of bio-technologies and software pipelines have emerged to revolutionize genomics. To further their central goal, they aim to accelerate and improve the quality of de novo whole-genome assembly starting from short DNA sequences/reads. However, the performance of each of these tools is contingent on the length and quality of the sequencing data, the structure and complexity of the genome sequence, and the resolution and quality of long-range information. Furthermore, in the absence of any metric that captures the most fundamental "features" of a high-quality assembly, there is no obvious recipe for users to select the most desirable assembler/assembly. This situation has prompted the scientific community to rely on crowd-sourcing through international competitions, such as Assemblathons or GAGE, with the intention of identifying the best assembler(s) and their features. Somewhat circuitously, the only available approach to gauge de novo assemblies and assemblers relies solely on the availability of a high-quality fully assembled reference genome sequence. Still worse, reference-guided evaluations are often both difficult to analyze, leading to conclusions that are difficult to interpret. In this paper, we circumvent many of these issues by relying upon a tool, dubbed [Formula: see text], which is capable of evaluating de novo assemblies from the read-layouts even when no reference exists. We extend the FRCurve approach to cases where lay-out information may have been obscured, as is true in many deBruijn-graph-based algorithms. As a by-product, FRCurve now expands its applicability to a much wider class of assemblers - thus, identifying higher-quality members of this group, their inter-relations as well as sensitivity to carefully selected features, with or without the support of a reference sequence or layout for the reads. The paper concludes by reevaluating several recently conducted assembly competitions and the datasets that have resulted from them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 5%
Sweden 5 2%
United Kingdom 5 2%
Germany 4 2%
Norway 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 179 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 25%
Researcher 54 25%
Student > Master 27 12%
Other 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 21 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 122 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 16%
Computer Science 14 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 24 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#812,245
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#10,703
of 224,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,033
of 290,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#200
of 4,830 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 290,129 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,830 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.