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 |
Capturing needles in haystacks: a comparison of B-cell receptor sequencing methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Immunology, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12865-014-0029-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachael JM Bashford-Rogers, Anne L Palser, Saad F Idris, Lisa Carter, Michael Epstein, Robin E Callard, Daniel C Douek, George S Vassiliou, George A Follows, Mike Hubank, Paul Kellam |
| Abstract |
Deep-sequencing methods are rapidly developing in the field of B-cell receptor (BCR) and T-cell receptor (TCR) diversity. These promise to revolutionise our understanding of adaptive immune dynamics, identify novel antibodies, and allow monitoring of minimal residual disease. However, different methods for BCR and TCR enrichment and amplification have been proposed. Here we perform the first systematic comparison between different methods of enrichment, amplification and sequencing for generating BCR and TCR repertoires using large sample numbers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Russia | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 146 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 51 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 45 | 28% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 29 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 9% |
| Engineering | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 27 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,844,442
of 23,570,677 outputs
Outputs from BMC Immunology
#50
of 592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,734
of 231,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Immunology
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,570,677 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 592 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 231,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.