↓ Skip to main content

A bioinformatics workflow for detecting signatures of selection in genomic data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, August 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
418 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
A bioinformatics workflow for detecting signatures of selection in genomic data
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Murray Cadzow, James Boocock, Hoang T. Nguyen, Phillip Wilcox, Tony R. Merriman, Michael A. Black

Abstract

The detection of "signatures of selection" is now possible on a genome-wide scale in many plant and animal species, and can be performed in a population-specific manner due to the wealth of per-population genome-wide genotype data that is available. With genomic regions that exhibit evidence of having been under selection shown to also be enriched for genes associated with biologically important traits, detection of evidence of selective pressure is emerging as an additional approach for identifying novel gene-trait associations. While high-density genotype data is now relatively easy to obtain, for many researchers it is not immediately obvious how to go about identifying signatures of selection in these data sets. Here we describe a basic workflow, constructed from open source tools, for detecting and examining evidence of selection in genomic data. Code to install and implement the pipeline components, and instructions to run a basic analysis using the workflow described here, can be downloaded from our public GitHub repository: http://www.github.com/smilefreak/selectionTools/

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 418 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Spain 4 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
Other 6 1%
Unknown 385 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 98 23%
Researcher 97 23%
Student > Master 58 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 8%
Student > Postgraduate 18 4%
Other 66 16%
Unknown 47 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 236 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 86 21%
Computer Science 9 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 1%
Social Sciences 5 1%
Other 21 5%
Unknown 55 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,418,900
of 25,721,020 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#265
of 13,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,160
of 247,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#3
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,721,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,781 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 247,965 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 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 97% of its contemporaries.