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 |
Tools for T-RFLP data analysis using Excel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-014-0361-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nils Johan Fredriksson, Malte Hermansson, Britt-Marie Wilén |
| Abstract |
Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis is a DNA-fingerprinting method that can be used for comparisons of the microbial community composition in a large number of samples. There is no consensus on how T-RFLP data should be treated and analyzed before comparisons between samples are made, and several different approaches have been proposed in the literature. The analysis of T-RFLP data can be cumbersome and time-consuming, and for large datasets manual data analysis is not feasible. The currently available tools for automated T-RFLP analysis, although valuable, offer little flexibility, and few, if any, options regarding what methods to use. To enable comparisons and combinations of different data treatment methods an analysis template and an extensive collection of macros for T-RFLP data analysis using Microsoft Excel were developed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Germany | 2 | 17% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 8% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Scientists | 5 | 42% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Sudan | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 24% |
| Researcher | 13 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#5,600,132
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,986
of 7,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,872
of 264,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#42
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 264,575 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 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 71% of its contemporaries.