↓ Skip to main content

GACT: a Genome build and Allele definition Conversion Tool for SNP imputation and meta-analysis in genetic association studies

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
GACT: a Genome build and Allele definition Conversion Tool for SNP imputation and meta-analysis in genetic association studies
Published in
BMC Genomics, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-610
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arvis Sulovari, Dawei Li

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have successfully identified genes associated with complex human diseases. Although much of the heritability remains unexplained, combining single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes from multiple studies for meta-analysis will increase the statistical power to identify new disease-associated variants. Meta-analysis requires same allele definition (nomenclature) and genome build among individual studies. Similarly, imputation, commonly-used prior to meta-analysis, requires the same consistency. However, the genotypes from various GWAS are generated using different genotyping platforms, arrays or SNP-calling approaches, resulting in use of different genome builds and allele definitions. Incorrect assumptions of identical allele definition among combined GWAS lead to a large portion of discarded genotypes or incorrect association findings. There is no published tool that predicts and converts among all major allele definitions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 33%
Computer Science 6 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 19%
Mathematics 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,403,185
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,753
of 11,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,790
of 240,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#108
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,250 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 56% 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 240,146 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 284 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 60% of its contemporaries.