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 |
Comparative performance of the BGISEQ-500 and Illumina HiSeq4000 sequencing platforms for transcriptome analysis in plants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Methods, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13007-018-0337-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fu-Yuan Zhu, Mo-Xian Chen, Neng-Hui Ye, Wang-Min Qiao, Bei Gao, Wai-Ki Law, Yuan Tian, Dong Zhang, Di Zhang, Tie-Yuan Liu, Qi-Juan Hu, Yun-Ying Cao, Ze-Zhuo Su, Jianhua Zhang, Ying-Gao Liu |
| Abstract |
The next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has greatly facilitated genomic and transcriptomic studies, contributing significantly in expanding the current knowledge on genome and transcriptome. However, the continually evolving variety of sequencing platforms, protocols and analytical pipelines has led the research community to focus on cross-platform evaluation and standardization. As a NGS pioneer in China, the Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) has announced its own NGS platform designated as BGISEQ-500, since 2016. The capability of this platform in large-scale DNA sequencing and small RNA analysis has been already evaluated. However, the comparative performance of BGISEQ-500 platform in transcriptome analysis remains yet to be elucidated. The Illumina series, a leading sequencing platform in China's sequencing market, would be a preferable reference to evaluate new platforms. To this end, we describe a cross-platform comparative study between BGISEQ-500 and Illumina HiSeq4000 for analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana WT (Col 0) transcriptome. The key parameters in RNA sequencing and transcriptomic data processing were assessed in biological replicate experiments, using aforesaid platforms. The results from the two platforms BGISEQ-500 and Illumina HiSeq4000 shared high concordance in both inter- (correlation, 0.88-0.93) and intra-platform (correlation, 0.95-0.98) comparison for gene quantification, identification of differentially expressed genes and alternative splicing events. However, the two platforms yielded highly variable interpretation results for single nucleotide polymorphism and insertion-deletion analysis. The present case study provides a comprehensive reference dataset to validate the capability of BGISEQ-500 enabling it to be established as a competitive and reliable platform in plant transcriptome analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 21% |
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
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 14 March 2020.
All research outputs
#14,254,705
of 25,163,238 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#617
of 1,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,672
of 336,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,163,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 336,834 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 56% of its contemporaries.