↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of insert sizes and adapter content in fastq data from NexteraXT libraries

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2014
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Assessment of insert sizes and adapter content in fastq data from NexteraXT libraries
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances S. Turner

Abstract

The Illumina NexteraXT transposon protocol is a cost effective way to generate paired end libraries. However, the resulting insert size is highly sensitive to the concentration of DNA used, and the variation of insert sizes is often large. One consequence of this is some fragments may have an insert shorter than the length of a single read, particularly where the library is designed to produce overlapping paired end reads in order to produce longer continuous sequences. Such small insert sizes mean fewer longer reads, and also result in the presence of adapter at the end of the read. Here is presented a protocol to use publicly available tools to identify read pairs with small insert sizes and so likely to contain adapter, to check the sequence of the adapter, and remove adapter sequence from the reads. This protocol does not require a reference genome or prior knowledge of the sequence to be trimmed. Whilst the presence of fragments with small insert sizes may be a particular problem for NexteraXT libraries, the principle can be applied to any Illumina dataset in which the presence of such small inserts is suspected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Estonia 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 172 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 23%
Researcher 40 22%
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 24 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 82 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 56 31%
Environmental Science 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 28 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#4,011,932
of 24,562,945 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,209
of 13,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,258
of 318,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#14
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,562,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,238 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 318,327 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.