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 |
A statistical framework for analyzing deep mutational scanning data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-017-1272-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alan F. Rubin, Hannah Gelman, Nathan Lucas, Sandra M. Bajjalieh, Anthony T. Papenfuss, Terence P. Speed, Douglas M. Fowler |
| Abstract |
Deep mutational scanning is a widely used method for multiplex measurement of functional consequences of protein variants. We developed a new deep mutational scanning statistical model that generates error estimates for each measurement, capturing both sampling error and consistency between replicates. We apply our model to one novel and five published datasets comprising 243,732 variants and demonstrate its superiority in removing noisy variants and conducting hypothesis testing. Simulations show our model applies to scans based on cell growth or binding and handles common experimental errors. We implemented our model in Enrich2, software that can empower researchers analyzing deep mutational scanning data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 | 13 | 28% |
| Australia | 7 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 11% |
| Canada | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 24 | 52% |
| Members of the public | 21 | 46% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 296 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 295 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 92 | 31% |
| Researcher | 53 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 29 | 10% |
| Unknown | 59 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 122 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 53 | 18% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 10% |
| Unknown | 64 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 22 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,071,869
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#772
of 4,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,785
of 327,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#17
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 327,745 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 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.