↓ Skip to main content

Large-Scale Structural Variation Detection in Subterranean Clover Subtypes Using Optical Mapping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Large-Scale Structural Variation Detection in Subterranean Clover Subtypes Using Optical Mapping
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00971
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuxuan Yuan, Zbyněk Milec, Philipp E. Bayer, Jan Vrána, Jaroslav Doležel, David Edwards, William Erskine, Parwinder Kaur

Abstract

We selected two genetically diverse subspecies of the Trifolium model species, subterranean clover cvs. Daliak and Yarloop. The structural variations (SVs) discovered by Bionano optical mapping (BOM) were validated using Illumina short reads. In the analysis, BOM identified 12 large-scale regions containing deletions and 19 regions containing insertions in Yarloop. The 12 large-scale regions contained 71 small deletions when validated by Illumina short reads. The results suggest that BOM could detect the total size of deletions and insertions, but it could not precisely report the location and actual quantity of SVs in the genome. Nucleotide-level validation is crucial to confirm and characterize SVs reported by optical mapping. The accuracy of SV detection by BOM is highly dependent on the quality of reference genomes and the density of selected nickases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,500,672
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#4,681
of 21,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,332
of 297,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#144
of 483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,636 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 297,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 483 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.