↓ Skip to main content

Repliscan: a tool for classifying replication timing regions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2017
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Repliscan: a tool for classifying replication timing regions
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1774-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory J. Zynda, Jawon Song, Lorenzo Concia, Emily E. Wear, Linda Hanley-Bowdoin, William F. Thompson, Matthew W. Vaughn

Abstract

Replication timing experiments that use label incorporation and high throughput sequencing produce peaked data similar to ChIP-Seq experiments. However, the differences in experimental design, coverage density, and possible results make traditional ChIP-Seq analysis methods inappropriate for use with replication timing. To accurately detect and classify regions of replication across the genome, we present Repliscan. Repliscan robustly normalizes, automatically removes outlying and uninformative data points, and classifies Repli-seq signals into discrete combinations of replication signatures. The quality control steps and self-fitting methods make Repliscan generally applicable and more robust than previous methods that classify regions based on thresholds. Repliscan is simple and effective to use on organisms with different genome sizes. Even with analysis window sizes as small as 1 kilobase, reliable profiles can be generated with as little as 2.4x coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 27%
Student > Master 6 20%
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 23%
Engineering 4 13%
Computer Science 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 1 3%
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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,360,215
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,747
of 7,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,586
of 317,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#55
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,310 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 317,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.