↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of RNA-Seq and Exon Arrays for Whole Genome Transcription Profiling of the L5 Spinal Nerve Transection Model of Neuropathic Pain in the Rat

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Pain, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 536)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
A Comparison of RNA-Seq and Exon Arrays for Whole Genome Transcription Profiling of the L5 Spinal Nerve Transection Model of Neuropathic Pain in the Rat
Published in
Molecular Pain, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1744-8069-10-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R Perkins, Ana Antunes-Martins, Margarita Calvo, John Grist, Werner Rust, Ramona Schmid, Tobias Hildebrandt, Matthias Kohl, Christine Orengo, Stephen B McMahon, David LH Bennett

Abstract

The past decade has seen an abundance of transcriptional profiling studies of preclinical models of persistent pain, predominantly employing microarray technology. In this study we directly compare exon microarrays to RNA-seq and investigate the ability of both platforms to detect differentially expressed genes following nerve injury using the L5 spinal nerve transection model of neuropathic pain. We also investigate the effects of increasing RNA-seq sequencing depth. Finally we take advantage of the "agnostic" approach of RNA-seq to discover areas of expression outside of annotated exons that show marked changes in expression following nerve injury.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 94 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 26%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 10 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Neuroscience 14 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 16 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 04 November 2014.
All research outputs
#2,135,438
of 16,337,091 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Pain
#32
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,602
of 258,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Pain
#5
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,337,091 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 536 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 258,781 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.