↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of assembly algorithms for improving rate of metatranscriptomic functional annotation

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, 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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 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
Comparison of assembly algorithms for improving rate of metatranscriptomic functional annotation
Published in
Microbiome, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/2049-2618-2-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albi Celaj, Janet Markle, Jayne Danska, John Parkinson

Abstract

Microbiome-wide gene expression profiling through high-throughput RNA sequencing ('metatranscriptomics') offers a powerful means to functionally interrogate complex microbial communities. Key to successful exploitation of these datasets is the ability to confidently match relatively short sequence reads to known bacterial transcripts. In the absence of reference genomes, such annotation efforts may be enhanced by assembling reads into longer contiguous sequences ('contigs'), prior to database search strategies. Since reads from homologous transcripts may derive from several species, represented at different abundance levels, it is not clear how well current assembly pipelines perform for metatranscriptomic datasets. Here we evaluate the performance of four currently employed assemblers including de novo transcriptome assemblers - Trinity and Oases; the metagenomic assembler - Metavelvet; and the recently developed metatranscriptomic assembler IDBA-MT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Germany 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 222 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 64 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 26%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 5%
Other 11 5%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 24 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 111 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 41 17%
Environmental Science 20 8%
Computer Science 11 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 3%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 32 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 01 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,423,840
of 24,654,416 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#962
of 1,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,683
of 265,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,654,416 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 1,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,853 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 64% of its contemporaries.