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 |
Caught in the middle with multiple displacement amplification: the myth of pooling for avoiding multiple displacement amplification bias in a metagenome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Microbiome, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2049-2618-2-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel Marine, Coleen McCarren, Vansay Vorrasane, Dan Nasko, Erin Crowgey, Shawn W Polson, K Eric Wommack |
| Abstract |
Shotgun metagenomics has become an important tool for investigating the ecology of microorganisms. Underlying these investigations is the assumption that metagenome sequence data accurately estimates the census of microbial populations. Multiple displacement amplification (MDA) of microbial community DNA is often used in cases where it is difficult to obtain enough DNA for sequencing; however, MDA can result in amplification biases that may impact subsequent estimates of population census from metagenome data. Some have posited that pooling replicate MDA reactions negates these biases and restores the accuracy of population analyses. This assumption has not been empirically tested. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 3 | 30% |
| Austria | 1 | 10% |
| India | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 70% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 176 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 47 | 25% |
| Researcher | 42 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 75 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 35 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 16 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Unknown | 35 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,822,463
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#673
of 1,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,324
of 324,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 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 1,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 324,622 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.