↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of metagenomic samples using sequence signatures

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, December 2012
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Comparison of metagenomic samples using sequence signatures
Published in
BMC Genomics, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-13-730
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bai Jiang, Kai Song, Jie Ren, Minghua Deng, Fengzhu Sun, Xuegong Zhang

Abstract

Sequence signatures, as defined by the frequencies of k-tuples (or k-mers, k-grams), have been used extensively to compare genomic sequences of individual organisms, to identify cis-regulatory modules, and to study the evolution of regulatory sequences. Recently many next-generation sequencing (NGS) read data sets of metagenomic samples from a variety of different environments have been generated. The assembly of these reads can be difficult and analysis methods based on mapping reads to genes or pathways are also restricted by the availability and completeness of existing databases. Sequence-signature-based methods, however, do not need the complete genomes or existing databases and thus, can potentially be very useful for the comparison of metagenomic samples using NGS read data. Still, the applications of sequence signature methods for the comparison of metagenomic samples have not been well studied.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Italy 2 1%
France 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Sweden 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 150 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 28%
Student > Master 26 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 6 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 90 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 14%
Computer Science 17 10%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 16 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 25 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,258,013
of 21,298,857 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#265
of 10,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,089
of 292,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#12
of 660 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,298,857 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 10,263 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 292,188 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 660 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 98% of its contemporaries.