↓ Skip to main content

Why so many unknown genes? Partitioning orphans from a representative transcriptome of the lone star tick Amblyomma americanum

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
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Why so many unknown genes? Partitioning orphans from a representative transcriptome of the lone star tick Amblyomma americanum
Published in
BMC Genomics, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-14-135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda K Gibson, Zach Smith, Clay Fuqua, Keith Clay, John K Colbourne

Abstract

Genomic resources within the phylum Arthropoda are largely limited to the true insects but are beginning to include unexplored subphyla, such as the Crustacea and Chelicerata. Investigations of these understudied taxa uncover high frequencies of orphan genes, which lack detectable sequence homology to genes in pre-existing databases. The ticks (Acari: Chelicerata) are one such understudied taxon for which genomic resources are urgently needed. Ticks are obligate blood-feeders that vector major diseases of humans, domesticated animals, and wildlife. In analyzing a transcriptome of the lone star tick Amblyomma americanum, one of the most abundant disease vectors in the United States, we find a high representation of unannotated sequences. We apply a general framework for quantifying the origin and true representation of unannotated sequences in a dataset and for evaluating the biological significance of orphan genes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 96 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 28%
Researcher 22 21%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 7 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 11 11%
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 29 March 2013.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,103
of 11,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,367
of 205,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#103
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 205,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.