↓ Skip to main content

Computational approaches to interpreting genomic sequence variation

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, 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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
citeulike
6 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
Computational approaches to interpreting genomic sequence variation
Published in
Genome Medicine, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13073-014-0087-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graham RS Ritchie, Paul Flicek

Abstract

Identifying sequence variants that play a mechanistic role in human disease and other phenotypes is a fundamental goal in human genetics and will be important in translating the results of variation studies. Experimental validation to confirm that a variant causes the biochemical changes responsible for a given disease or phenotype is considered the gold standard, but this cannot currently be applied to the 3 million or so variants expected in an individual genome. This has prompted the development of a wide variety of computational approaches that use several different sources of information to identify functional variation. Here, we review and assess the limitations of computational techniques for categorizing variants according to functional classes, prioritizing variants for experimental follow-up and generating hypotheses about the possible molecular mechanisms to inform downstream experiments. We discuss the main current bioinformatics approaches to identifying functional variation, including widely used algorithms for coding variation such as SIFT and PolyPhen and also novel techniques for interpreting variation across the genome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 130 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 24%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 12 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 9%
Computer Science 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 18 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 27 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,382,540
of 25,085,910 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#539
of 1,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,620
of 266,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#18
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,085,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 266,795 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 69% of its contemporaries.