↓ Skip to main content

Tools and best practices for data processing in allelic expression analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
82 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
250 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
592 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Tools and best practices for data processing in allelic expression analysis
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13059-015-0762-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephane E. Castel, Ami Levy-Moonshine, Pejman Mohammadi, Eric Banks, Tuuli Lappalainen

Abstract

Allelic expression analysis has become important for integrating genome and transcriptome data to characterize various biological phenomena such as cis-regulatory variation and nonsense-mediated decay. We analyze the properties of allelic expression read count data and technical sources of error, such as low-quality or double-counted RNA-seq reads, genotyping errors, allelic mapping bias, and technical covariates due to sample preparation and sequencing, and variation in total read depth. We provide guidelines for correcting such errors, show that our quality control measures improve the detection of relevant allelic expression, and introduce tools for the high-throughput production of allelic expression data from RNA-sequencing data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 592 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 2%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 574 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 160 27%
Researcher 137 23%
Student > Master 72 12%
Student > Bachelor 29 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 4%
Other 87 15%
Unknown 83 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 211 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 187 32%
Computer Science 25 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 1%
Other 34 6%
Unknown 102 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 03 August 2022.
All research outputs
#560,221
of 21,777,067 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#423
of 4,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,977
of 262,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,777,067 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 262,428 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them