↓ Skip to main content

Identification and correction of systematic error in high-throughput sequence data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2011
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
467 Mendeley
citeulike
26 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
Identification and correction of systematic error in high-throughput sequence data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-12-451
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frazer Meacham, Dario Boffelli, Joseph Dhahbi, David IK Martin, Meromit Singer, Lior Pachter

Abstract

A feature common to all DNA sequencing technologies is the presence of base-call errors in the sequenced reads. The implications of such errors are application specific, ranging from minor informatics nuisances to major problems affecting biological inferences. Recently developed "next-gen" sequencing technologies have greatly reduced the cost of sequencing, but have been shown to be more error prone than previous technologies. Both position specific (depending on the location in the read) and sequence specific (depending on the sequence in the read) errors have been identified in Illumina and Life Technology sequencing platforms. We describe a new type of systematic error that manifests as statistically unlikely accumulations of errors at specific genome (or transcriptome) locations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 467 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 19 4%
United Kingdom 10 2%
Germany 8 2%
Spain 5 1%
Brazil 5 1%
France 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Other 14 3%
Unknown 398 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 147 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 120 26%
Student > Master 42 9%
Other 32 7%
Student > Bachelor 23 5%
Other 72 15%
Unknown 31 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 248 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 76 16%
Computer Science 42 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 3%
Mathematics 13 3%
Other 39 8%
Unknown 36 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 December 2011.
All research outputs
#4,968,103
of 24,162,141 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,823
of 7,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,572
of 246,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#33
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,162,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 246,631 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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 70% of its contemporaries.