↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of genotype clustering tools with rare variants

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Comparison of genotype clustering tools with rare variants
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louis-Philippe Lemieux Perreault, Marc-André Legault, Amina Barhdadi, Sylvie Provost, Valérie Normand, Jean-Claude Tardif, Marie-Pierre Dubé

Abstract

Along with the improvement of high throughput sequencing technologies, the genetics community is showing marked interest for the rare variants/common diseases hypothesis. While sequencing can still be prohibitive for large studies, commercially available genotyping arrays targeting rare variants prove to be a reasonable alternative. A technical challenge of array based methods is the task of deriving genotype classes (homozygous or heterozygous) by clustering intensity data points. The performance of clustering tools for common polymorphisms is well established, while their performance when conducted with a large proportion of rare variants (where data points are sparse for genotypes containing the rare allele) is less known. We have compared the performance of four clustering tools (GenCall, GenoSNP, optiCall and zCall) for the genotyping of over 10,000 samples using the Illumina's HumanExome BeadChip, which includes 247,870 variants, 90% of which have a minor allele frequency below 5% in a population of European ancestry. Different reference parameters for GenCall and different initial parameters for GenoSNP were tested. Genotyping accuracy was assessed using data from the 1000 Genomes Project as a gold standard, and agreement between tools was measured.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Sweden 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 31 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 37%
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Other 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Computer Science 3 9%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 4 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 March 2014.
All research outputs
#14,775,080
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,040
of 7,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,702
of 224,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#67
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 224,442 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.