↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating bias-reducing protocols for RNA sequencing library preparation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Evaluating bias-reducing protocols for RNA sequencing library preparation
Published in
BMC Genomics, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-569
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas J Jackson, Ruth V Spriggs, Nicholas J Burgoyne, Carolyn Jones, Anne E Willis

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing does not yield fully unbiased estimates for read abundance, which may impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from sequencing data. The ligation step in RNA sequencing library generation is a known source of bias, motivating developments in enzyme technology and library construction protocols. We present the first comparison of the standard duplex adaptor protocol supplied by Life Technologies for use on the Ion Torrent PGM with an alternate single adaptor approach involving CircLigase (CircLig protocol).A correlation between over-representation in sequenced libraries and degree of secondary structure has been reported previously, therefore we also investigated whether bias could be reduced by ligation with an enzyme that functions at a temperature not permissive for such structure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Italy 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 65 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 36%
Researcher 23 32%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 3 4%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 8 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#3,479
of 11,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,657
of 240,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#84
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 240,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 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 66% of its contemporaries.