↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation and comparison of computational tools for RNA-seq isoform quantification

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
68 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
514 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
Evaluation and comparison of computational tools for RNA-seq isoform quantification
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-4002-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chi Zhang, Baohong Zhang, Lih-Ling Lin, Shanrong Zhao

Abstract

Alternatively spliced transcript isoforms are commonly observed in higher eukaryotes. The expression levels of these isoforms are key for understanding normal functions in healthy tissues and the progression of disease states. However, accurate quantification of expression at the transcript level is limited with current RNA-seq technologies because of, for example, limited read length and the cost of deep sequencing. A large number of tools have been developed to tackle this problem, and we performed a comprehensive evaluation of these tools using both experimental and simulated RNA-seq datasets. We found that recently developed alignment-free tools are both fast and accurate. The accuracy of all methods was mainly influenced by the complexity of gene structures and caution must be taken when interpreting quantification results for short transcripts. Using TP53 gene simulation, we discovered that both sequencing depth and the relative abundance of different isoforms affect quantification accuracy CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive evaluation helps data analysts to make informed choice when selecting computational tools for isoform quantification.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 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 514 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 514 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 116 23%
Researcher 105 20%
Student > Master 82 16%
Student > Bachelor 44 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 5%
Other 51 10%
Unknown 89 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 173 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 129 25%
Computer Science 29 6%
Neuroscience 13 3%
Engineering 9 2%
Other 52 10%
Unknown 109 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 09 August 2019.
All research outputs
#840,036
of 25,331,507 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#105
of 11,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,238
of 323,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#4
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,331,507 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,220 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 323,805 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 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 98% of its contemporaries.