↓ Skip to main content

Red: an intelligent, rapid, accurate tool for detecting repeats de-novo on the genomic scale

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
Red: an intelligent, rapid, accurate tool for detecting repeats de-novo on the genomic scale
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0654-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hani Z. Girgis

Abstract

With rapid advancements in technology, the sequences of thousands of species' genomes are becoming available. Within the sequences are repeats that comprise significant portions of genomes. Successful annotations thus require accurate discovery of repeats. As species-specific elements, repeats in newly sequenced genomes are likely to be unknown. Therefore, annotating newly sequenced genomes requires tools to discover repeats de-novo. However, the currently available de-novo tools have limitations concerning the size of the input sequence, ease of use, sensitivities to major types of repeats, consistency of performance, speed, and false positive rate. To address these limitations, I designed and developed Red, applying Machine Learning. Red is the first repeat-detection tool capable of labeling its training data and training itself automatically on an entire genome. Red is easy to install and use. It is sensitive to both transposons and simple repeats; in contrast, available tools such as RepeatScout and ReCon are sensitive to transposons, and WindowMasker to simple repeats. Red performed consistently well on seven genomes; the other tools performed well only on some genomes. Red is much faster than RepeatScout and ReCon and has a much lower false positive rate than WindowMasker. On human genes with five or more copies, Red was more specific than RepeatScout by a wide margin. When tested on genomes of unusual nucleotide compositions, Red located repeats with high sensitivities and maintained moderate false positive rates. Red outperformed the related tools on a bacterial genome. Red identified 46,405 novel repetitive segments in the human genome. Finally, Red is capable of processing assembled and unassembled genomes. Red's innovative methodology and its excellent performance on seven different genomes represent a valuable advancement in the field of repeats discovery.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Norway 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 183 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 19%
Researcher 36 19%
Student > Master 35 18%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 37 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 30%
Computer Science 15 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 37 19%
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 09 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,273,801
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#663
of 7,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,996
of 263,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#12
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 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 7,284 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 263,414 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.