↓ Skip to main content

Investigation into the annotation of protocol sequencing steps in the sequence read archive

Overview of attention for article published in Giga Science, May 2015
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Investigation into the annotation of protocol sequencing steps in the sequence read archive
Published in
Giga Science, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13742-015-0064-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie Alnasir, Hugh P Shanahan

Abstract

The workflow for the production of high-throughput sequencing data from nucleic acid samples is complex. There are a series of protocol steps to be followed in the preparation of samples for next-generation sequencing. The quantification of bias in a number of protocol steps, namely DNA fractionation, blunting, phosphorylation, adapter ligation and library enrichment, remains to be determined. We examined the experimental metadata of the public repository Sequence Read Archive (SRA) in order to ascertain the level of annotation of important sequencing steps in submissions to the database. Using SQL relational database queries (using the SRAdb SQLite database generated by the Bioconductor consortium) to search for keywords commonly occurring in key preparatory protocol steps partitioned over studies, we found that 7.10%, 5.84% and 7.57% of all records (fragmentation, ligation and enrichment, respectively), had at least one keyword corresponding to one of the three protocol steps. Only 4.06% of all records, partitioned over studies, had keywords for all three steps in the protocol (5.58% of all SRA records). The current level of annotation in the SRA inhibits systematic studies of bias due to these protocol steps. Downstream from this, meta-analyses and comparative studies based on these data will have a source of bias that cannot be quantified at present.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
France 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 48 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 25%
Computer Science 7 13%
Engineering 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 19 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,112,363
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Giga Science
#417
of 1,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,332
of 278,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Giga Science
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 278,742 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 16 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 62% of its contemporaries.