↓ Skip to main content

Scalable and cost-effective NGS genotyping in the cloud

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, October 2015
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 (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Scalable and cost-effective NGS genotyping in the cloud
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12920-015-0134-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yassine Souilmi, Alex K. Lancaster, Jae-Yoon Jung, Ettore Rizzo, Jared B. Hawkins, Ryan Powles, Saaïd Amzazi, Hassan Ghazal, Peter J. Tonellato, Dennis P. Wall

Abstract

While next-generation sequencing (NGS) costs have plummeted in recent years, cost and complexity of computation remain substantial barriers to the use of NGS in routine clinical care. The clinical potential of NGS will not be realized until robust and routine whole genome sequencing data can be accurately rendered to medically actionable reports within a time window of hours and at scales of economy in the 10's of dollars. We take a step towards addressing this challenge, by using COSMOS, a cloud-enabled workflow management system, to develop GenomeKey, an NGS whole genome analysis workflow. COSMOS implements complex workflows making optimal use of high-performance compute clusters. Here we show that the Amazon Web Service (AWS) implementation of GenomeKey via COSMOS provides a fast, scalable, and cost-effective analysis of both public benchmarking and large-scale heterogeneous clinical NGS datasets. Our systematic benchmarking reveals important new insights and considerations to produce clinical turn-around of whole genome analysis optimization and workflow management including strategic batching of individual genomes and efficient cluster resource configuration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 24%
Computer Science 13 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 7 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,293,229
of 25,564,614 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#980
of 2,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,799
of 291,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#19
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,564,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,452 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 291,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 63% of its contemporaries.