↓ Skip to main content

Assembling metagenomes, one community at a time

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, July 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
48 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
390 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
Assembling metagenomes, one community at a time
Published in
BMC Genomics, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3918-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andries Johannes van der Walt, Marc Warwick van Goethem, Jean-Baptiste Ramond, Thulani Peter Makhalanyane, Oleg Reva, Don Arthur Cowan

Abstract

Metagenomics allows unprecedented access to uncultured environmental microorganisms. The analysis of metagenomic sequences facilitates gene prediction and annotation, and enables the assembly of draft genomes, including uncultured members of a community. However, while several platforms have been developed for this critical step, there is currently no clear framework for the assembly of metagenomic sequence data. To assist with selection of an appropriate metagenome assembler we evaluated the capabilities of nine prominent assembly tools on nine publicly-available environmental metagenomes, as well as three simulated datasets. Overall, we found that SPAdes provided the largest contigs and highest N50 values across 6 of the 9 environmental datasets, followed by MEGAHIT and metaSPAdes. MEGAHIT emerged as a computationally inexpensive alternative to SPAdes, assembling the most complex dataset using less than 500 GB of RAM and within 10 hours. We found that assembler choice ultimately depends on the scientific question, the available resources and the bioinformatic competence of the researcher. We provide a concise workflow for the selection of the best assembly tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 390 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Australia 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 381 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 23%
Researcher 75 19%
Student > Master 64 16%
Student > Bachelor 35 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 4%
Other 47 12%
Unknown 66 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 120 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 89 23%
Environmental Science 29 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 26 7%
Computer Science 14 4%
Other 35 9%
Unknown 77 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 26 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,506,879
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#266
of 11,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,758
of 326,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#10
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,309 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 326,129 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 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 95% of its contemporaries.