↓ Skip to main content

Cinteny: flexible analysis and visualization of synteny and genome rearrangements in multiple organisms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Cinteny: flexible analysis and visualization of synteny and genome rearrangements in multiple organisms
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-8-82
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amit U Sinha, Jaroslaw Meller

Abstract

Identifying syntenic regions, i.e., blocks of genes or other markers with evolutionary conserved order, and quantifying evolutionary relatedness between genomes in terms of chromosomal rearrangements is one of the central goals in comparative genomics. However, the analysis of synteny and the resulting assessment of genome rearrangements are sensitive to the choice of a number of arbitrary parameters that affect the detection of synteny blocks. In particular, the choice of a set of markers and the effect of different aggregation strategies, which enable coarse graining of synteny blocks and exclusion of micro-rearrangements, need to be assessed. Therefore, existing tools and resources that facilitate identification, visualization and analysis of synteny need to be further improved to provide a flexible platform for such analysis, especially in the context of multiple genomes.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
Sweden 5 4%
Russia 2 2%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 111 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 27%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 8 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 19%
Computer Science 17 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 12 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 September 2017.
All research outputs
#5,103,668
of 16,110,746 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,286
of 5,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,115
of 155,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,110,746 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 155,954 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.