↓ Skip to main content

Next-generation phylogenomics

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 597)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
314 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Next-generation phylogenomics
Published in
Biology Direct, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-8-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheong Xin Chan, Mark A Ragan

Abstract

Thanks to advances in next-generation technologies, genome sequences are now being generated at breadth (e.g. across environments) and depth (thousands of closely related strains, individuals or samples) unimaginable only a few years ago. Phylogenomics--the study of evolutionary relationships based on comparative analysis of genome-scale data--has so far been developed as industrial-scale molecular phylogenetics, proceeding in the two classical steps: multiple alignment of homologous sequences, followed by inference of a tree (or multiple trees). However, the algorithms typically employed for these steps scale poorly with number of sequences, such that for an increasing number of problems, high-quality phylogenomic analysis is (or soon will be) computationally infeasible. Moreover, next-generation data are often incomplete and error-prone, and analysis may be further complicated by genome rearrangement, gene fusion and deletion, lateral genetic transfer, and transcript variation. Here we argue that next-generation data require next-generation phylogenomics, including so-called alignment-free approaches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 314 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 9 3%
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 283 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 26%
Researcher 69 22%
Student > Master 45 14%
Student > Bachelor 31 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 20 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 183 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 51 16%
Computer Science 15 5%
Environmental Science 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 2%
Other 17 5%
Unknown 31 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 26 May 2017.
All research outputs
#981,506
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#36
of 597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,704
of 254,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 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 597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 254,172 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them