↓ Skip to main content

Software for the analysis and visualization of deep mutational scanning data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Software for the analysis and visualization of deep mutational scanning data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0590-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesse D Bloom

Abstract

Deep mutational scanning is a technique to estimate the impacts of mutations on a gene by using deep sequencing to count mutations in a library of variants before and after imposing a functional selection. The impacts of mutations must be inferred from changes in their counts after selection. I describe a software package, dms_tools, to infer the impacts of mutations from deep mutational scanning data using a likelihood-based treatment of the mutation counts. I show that dms_tools yields more accurate inferences on simulated data than simply calculating ratios of counts pre- and post-selection. Using dms_tools, one can infer the preference of each site for each amino acid given a single selection pressure, or assess the extent to which these preferences change under different selection pressures. The preferences and their changes can be intuitively visualized with sequence-logo-style plots created using an extension to weblogo. dms_tools implements a statistically principled approach for the analysis and subsequent visualization of deep mutational scanning data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 156 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 31%
Researcher 40 25%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Professor 6 4%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 25%
Computer Science 8 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 4%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 27 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,758,492
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,930
of 7,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,034
of 266,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#100
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 266,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.