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 |
Treemmer: a tool to reduce large phylogenetic datasets with minimal loss of diversity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-018-2164-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fabrizio Menardo, Chloé Loiseau, Daniela Brites, Mireia Coscolla, Sebastian M. Gygli, Liliana K. Rutaihwa, Andrej Trauner, Christian Beisel, Sonia Borrell, Sebastien Gagneux |
| Abstract |
Large sequence datasets are difficult to visualize and handle. Additionally, they often do not represent a random subset of the natural diversity, but the result of uncoordinated and convenience sampling. Consequently, they can suffer from redundancy and sampling biases. Here we present Treemmer, a simple tool to evaluate the redundancy of phylogenetic trees and reduce their complexity by eliminating leaves that contribute the least to the tree diversity. Treemmer can reduce the size of datasets with different phylogenetic structures and levels of redundancy while maintaining a sub-sample that is representative of the original diversity. Additionally, it is possible to fine-tune the behavior of Treemmer including any kind of meta-information, making Treemmer particularly useful for empirical studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Sweden | 1 | 9% |
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 144 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 33 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 45 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 17% |
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 22 March 2023.
All research outputs
#6,326,642
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,094
of 7,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,418
of 339,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#24
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 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 7,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 339,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.