↓ Skip to main content

Algorithms designed for compressed-gene-data transformation among gene banks with different references

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Algorithms designed for compressed-gene-data transformation among gene banks with different references
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2230-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiuming Luo, Chao Guo, Yi Jun Zhang, Ye Cai, Gang Liu

Abstract

With the reduction of gene sequencing cost and demand for emerging technologies such as precision medical treatment and deep learning in genome, it is an era of gene data outbreaks today. How to store, transmit and analyze these data has become a hotspot in the current research. Now the compression algorithm based on reference is widely used due to its high compression ratio. There exists a big problem that the data from different gene banks can't merge directly and share information efficiently, because these data are usually compressed with different references. The traditional workflow is decompression-and-recompression, which is too simple and time-consuming. We should improve it and speed it up. In this paper, we focus on this problem and propose a set of transformation algorithms to cope with it. We will 1) analyze some different compression algorithms to find the similarities and the differences among all of them, 2) come up with a naïve method named TDM for data transformation between difference gene banks and finally 3) optimize former method TDM and propose the method named TPI and the method named TGI. A number of experiment result proved that the three algorithms we proposed are an order of magnitude faster than traditional decompression-and-recompression workflow. Firstly, the three algorithms we proposed all have good performance in terms of time. Secondly, they have their own different advantages faced with different dataset or situations. TDM and TPI are more suitable for small-scale gene data transformation, while TGI is more suitable for large-scale gene data transformation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,859,387
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,075
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,757
of 330,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#48
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 330,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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 51% of its contemporaries.