↓ Skip to main content

Reducing bias in RNA sequencing data: a novel approach to compute counts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Reducing bias in RNA sequencing data: a novel approach to compute counts
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-s1-s7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Finotello, Enrico Lavezzo, Luca Bianco, Luisa Barzon, Paolo Mazzon, Paolo Fontana, Stefano Toppo, Barbara Di Camillo

Abstract

In the last decade, Next-Generation Sequencing technologies have been extensively applied to quantitative transcriptomics, making RNA sequencing a valuable alternative to microarrays for measuring and comparing gene transcription levels. Although several methods have been proposed to provide an unbiased estimate of transcript abundances through data normalization, all of them are based on an initial count of the total number of reads mapping on each transcript. This procedure, in principle robust to random noise, is actually error-prone if reads are not uniformly distributed along sequences, as happens indeed due to sequencing errors and ambiguity in read mapping. Here we propose a new approach, called maxcounts, to quantify the expression assigned to an exon as the maximum of its per-base counts, and we assess its performance in comparison with the standard approach described above, which considers the total number of reads aligned to an exon. The two measures are compared using multiple data sets and considering several evaluation criteria: independence from gene-specific covariates, such as exon length and GC-content, accuracy and precision in the quantification of true concentrations and robustness of measurements to variations of alignments quality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
United Kingdom 4 3%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 133 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 26%
Researcher 39 26%
Student > Master 15 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 16 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 19%
Computer Science 10 7%
Engineering 6 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 20 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 20 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,602,966
of 25,516,314 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#248
of 7,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,531
of 319,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#5
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,516,314 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,713 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 319,641 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.