↓ 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 (#48 of 533)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
335 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 335 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 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 305 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 26%
Researcher 71 21%
Student > Master 46 14%
Student > Bachelor 31 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 48 14%
Unknown 32 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 186 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 16%
Computer Science 16 5%
Environmental Science 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 2%
Other 18 5%
Unknown 44 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,594,613
of 25,161,628 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#48
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,821
of 291,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,161,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 291,869 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 8 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