↓ Skip to main content

A flexible Bayesian method for detecting allelic imbalance in RNA-seq data

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
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
A flexible Bayesian method for detecting allelic imbalance in RNA-seq data
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-920
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis G León-Novelo, Lauren M McIntyre, Justin M Fear, Rita M Graze

Abstract

One method of identifying cis regulatory differences is to analyze allele-specific expression (ASE) and identify cases of allelic imbalance (AI). RNA-seq is the most common way to measure ASE and a binomial test is often applied to determine statistical significance of AI. This implicitly assumes that there is no bias in estimation of AI. However, bias has been found to result from multiple factors including: genome ambiguity, reference quality, the mapping algorithm, and biases in the sequencing process. Two alternative approaches have been developed to handle bias: adjusting for bias using a statistical model and filtering regions of the genome suspected of harboring bias. Existing statistical models which account for bias rely on information from DNA controls, which can be cost prohibitive for large intraspecific studies. In contrast, data filtering is inexpensive and straightforward, but necessarily involves sacrificing a portion of the data.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 84 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 33%
Researcher 20 23%
Student > Master 12 14%
Professor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 22%
Mathematics 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 8 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,177,981
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,212
of 10,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,875
of 260,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#19
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,639 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 260,450 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 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 90% of its contemporaries.