↓ Skip to main content

Deep sequencing of evolving pathogen populations: applications, errors, and bioinformatic solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Informatics and Experimentation, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 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
Deep sequencing of evolving pathogen populations: applications, errors, and bioinformatic solutions
Published in
Microbial Informatics and Experimentation, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/2042-5783-4-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerensa McElroy, Torsten Thomas, Fabio Luciani

Abstract

Deep sequencing harnesses the high throughput nature of next generation sequencing technologies to generate population samples, treating information contained in individual reads as meaningful. Here, we review applications of deep sequencing to pathogen evolution. Pioneering deep sequencing studies from the virology literature are discussed, such as whole genome Roche-454 sequencing analyses of the dynamics of the rapidly mutating pathogens hepatitis C virus and HIV. Extension of the deep sequencing approach to bacterial populations is then discussed, including the impacts of emerging sequencing technologies. While it is clear that deep sequencing has unprecedented potential for assessing the genetic structure and evolutionary history of pathogen populations, bioinformatic challenges remain. We summarise current approaches to overcoming these challenges, in particular methods for detecting low frequency variants in the context of sequencing error and reconstructing individual haplotypes from short reads.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
Sweden 3 1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 241 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 61 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 21%
Student > Master 41 16%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Other 14 5%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 22 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 131 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 46 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 5%
Computer Science 7 3%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 31 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 February 2015.
All research outputs
#5,523,842
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Informatics and Experimentation
#10
of 15 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,705
of 329,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Informatics and Experimentation
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one scored the same or higher as 5 of them.
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 329,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them