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 |
DESMAN: a new tool for de novo extraction of strains from metagenomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13059-017-1309-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher Quince, Tom O. Delmont, Sébastien Raguideau, Johannes Alneberg, Aaron E. Darling, Gavin Collins, A. Murat Eren |
| Abstract |
We introduce DESMAN for De novo Extraction of Strains from Metagenomes. Large multi-sample metagenomes are being generated but strain variation results in fragmentary co-assemblies. Current algorithms can bin contigs into metagenome-assembled genomes but are unable to resolve strain-level variation. DESMAN identifies variants in core genes and uses co-occurrence across samples to link variants into haplotypes and abundance profiles. These are then searched for against non-core genes to determine the accessory genome of each strain. We validated DESMAN on a complex 50-species 210-genome 96-sample synthetic mock data set and then applied it to the Tara Oceans microbiome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 157 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 | 31 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 18 | 11% |
| Germany | 7 | 4% |
| Australia | 5 | 3% |
| Mexico | 4 | 3% |
| France | 4 | 3% |
| Austria | 3 | 2% |
| Chile | 3 | 2% |
| India | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 20% |
| Unknown | 47 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 85 | 54% |
| Members of the public | 65 | 41% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 364 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 364 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 93 | 26% |
| Researcher | 73 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 43 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 52 | 14% |
| Unknown | 67 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 121 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 68 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 28 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 24 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 15 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 8% |
| Unknown | 79 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#457,223
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#246
of 4,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,441
of 326,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#2
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 326,660 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 96% of its contemporaries.