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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Parallel comparison of Illumina RNA-Seq and Affymetrix microarray platforms on transcriptomic profiles generated from 5-aza-deoxy-cytidine treated HT-29 colon cancer cells and simulated datasets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-14-s9-s1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiao Xu, Yuanhao Zhang, Jennie Williams, Eric Antoniou, W Richard McCombie, Song Wu, Wei Zhu, Nicholas O Davidson, Paula Denoya, Ellen Li |
| Abstract |
High throughput parallel sequencing, RNA-Seq, has recently emerged as an appealing alternative to microarray in identifying differentially expressed genes (DEG) between biological groups. However, there still exists considerable discrepancy on gene expression measurements and DEG results between the two platforms. The objective of this study was to compare parallel paired-end RNA-Seq and microarray data generated on 5-azadeoxy-cytidine (5-Aza) treated HT-29 colon cancer cells with an additional simulation study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Poland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 80% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 167 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 24% |
| Researcher | 37 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 32 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 75 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 38 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 June 2015.
All research outputs
#1,775,849
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#425
of 7,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,218
of 195,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#12
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,260 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 195,456 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.