↓ Skip to main content

Mutation discovery in mice by whole exome sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
citeulike
6 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
Mutation discovery in mice by whole exome sequencing
Published in
Genome Biology, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/gb-2011-12-9-r86
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Fairfield, Griffith J Gilbert, Mary Barter, Rebecca R Corrigan, Michelle Curtain, Yueming Ding, Mark D'Ascenzo, Daniel J Gerhardt, Chao He, Wenhui Huang, Todd Richmond, Lucy Rowe, Frank J Probst, David E Bergstrom, Stephen A Murray, Carol Bult, Joel Richardson, Benjamin T Kile, Ivo Gut, Jorg Hager, Snaevar Sigurdsson, Evan Mauceli, Federica Di Palma, Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, Michael L Cunningham, Timothy C Cox, Monica J Justice, Mona S Spector, Scott W Lowe, Thomas Albert, Leah Rae Donahue, Jeffrey Jeddeloh, Jay Shendure, Laura G Reinholdt

Abstract

We report the development and optimization of reagents for in-solution, hybridization-based capture of the mouse exome. By validating this approach in a multiple inbred strains and in novel mutant strains, we show that whole exome sequencing is a robust approach for discovery of putative mutations, irrespective of strain background. We found strong candidate mutations for the majority of mutant exomes sequenced, including new models of orofacial clefting, urogenital dysmorphology, kyphosis and autoimmune hepatitis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 4%
Sweden 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Austria 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 152 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 58 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Student > Master 10 6%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 15 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 78 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 12%
Computer Science 5 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 1%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 18 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 29 August 2012.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#4,001
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,148
of 137,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#41
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 137,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.