↓ Skip to main content

A Poisson hierarchical modelling approach to detecting copy number variation in sequence coverage data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
A Poisson hierarchical modelling approach to detecting copy number variation in sequence coverage data
Published in
BMC Genomics, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-14-128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nuno Sepúlveda, Susana G Campino, Samuel A Assefa, Colin J Sutherland, Arnab Pain, Taane G Clark

Abstract

The advent of next generation sequencing technology has accelerated efforts to map and catalogue copy number variation (CNV) in genomes of important micro-organisms for public health. A typical analysis of the sequence data involves mapping reads onto a reference genome, calculating the respective coverage, and detecting regions with too-low or too-high coverage (deletions and amplifications, respectively). Current CNV detection methods rely on statistical assumptions (e.g., a Poisson model) that may not hold in general, or require fine-tuning the underlying algorithms to detect known hits. We propose a new CNV detection methodology based on two Poisson hierarchical models, the Poisson-Gamma and Poisson-Lognormal, with the advantage of being sufficiently flexible to describe different data patterns, whilst robust against deviations from the often assumed Poisson model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
United Kingdom 2 4%
France 1 2%
Unknown 50 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Computer Science 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Mathematics 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 5 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#5,391
of 11,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,408
of 205,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#90
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 205,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 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 51% of its contemporaries.