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 |
The Challenge of Small-Scale Repeats for Indel Discovery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giuseppe Narzisi, Michael C. Schatz |
| Abstract |
Repetitive sequences are abundant in the human genome. Different classes of repetitive DNA sequences, including simple repeats, tandem repeats, segmental duplications, interspersed repeats, and other elements, collectively span more than 50% of the genome. Because repeat sequences occur in the genome at different scales they can cause various types of sequence analysis errors, including in alignment, de novo assembly, and annotation, among others. This mini-review highlights the challenges introduced by small-scale repeat sequences, especially near-identical tandem or closely located repeats and short tandem repeats, for discovering DNA insertion and deletion (indel) mutations from next-generation sequencing data. We also discuss the de Bruijn graph sequence assembly paradigm that is emerging as the most popular and promising approach for detecting indels. The human exome is taken as an example and highlights how these repetitive elements can obscure or introduce errors while detecting these types of mutations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 31% |
| Canada | 3 | 23% |
| Norway | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 77% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| China | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 25% |
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,705,809
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#678
of 8,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,677
of 360,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#7
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,500 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 360,335 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.