↓ Skip to main content

BIGMAC : breaking inaccurate genomes and merging assembled contigs for long read metagenomic assembly

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
BIGMAC : breaking inaccurate genomes and merging assembled contigs for long read metagenomic assembly
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1288-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ka-Kit Lam, Richard Hall, Alicia Clum, Satish Rao

Abstract

The problem of de-novo assembly for metagenomes using only long reads is gaining attention. We study whether post-processing metagenomic assemblies with the original input long reads can result in quality improvement. Previous approaches have focused on pre-processing reads and optimizing assemblers. BIGMAC takes an alternative perspective to focus on the post-processing step. Using both the assembled contigs and original long reads as input, BIGMAC first breaks the contigs at potentially mis-assembled locations and subsequently scaffolds contigs. Our experiments on metagenomes assembled from long reads show that BIGMAC can improve assembly quality by reducing the number of mis-assemblies while maintaining or increasing N50 and N75. Moreover, BIGMAC shows the largest N75 to number of mis-assemblies ratio on all tested datasets when compared to other post-processing tools. BIGMAC demonstrates the effectiveness of the post-processing approach in improving the quality of metagenomic assemblies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Germany 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 57 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 14%
Computer Science 8 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,119,844
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,219
of 7,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,253
of 315,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#28
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 315,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.