↓ Skip to main content

Recovering complete and draft population genomes from metagenome datasets

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, March 2016
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
51 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
731 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Recovering complete and draft population genomes from metagenome datasets
Published in
Microbiome, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40168-016-0154-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naseer Sangwan, Fangfang Xia, Jack A. Gilbert

Abstract

Assembly of metagenomic sequence data into microbial genomes is of fundamental value to improving our understanding of microbial ecology and metabolism by elucidating the functional potential of hard-to-culture microorganisms. Here, we provide a synthesis of available methods to bin metagenomic contigs into species-level groups and highlight how genetic diversity, sequencing depth, and coverage influence binning success. Despite the computational cost on application to deeply sequenced complex metagenomes (e.g., soil), covarying patterns of contig coverage across multiple datasets significantly improves the binning process. We also discuss and compare current genome validation methods and reveal how these methods tackle the problem of chimeric genome bins i.e., sequences from multiple species. Finally, we explore how population genome assembly can be used to uncover biogeographic trends and to characterize the effect of in situ functional constraints on the genome-wide evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 731 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 1%
Brazil 5 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Other 6 <1%
Unknown 697 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 182 25%
Researcher 145 20%
Student > Master 114 16%
Student > Bachelor 65 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 5%
Other 97 13%
Unknown 93 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 267 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 158 22%
Environmental Science 47 6%
Computer Science 40 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 36 5%
Other 65 9%
Unknown 118 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 09 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,048,110
of 25,371,292 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#306
of 1,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,595
of 306,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,292 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 306,504 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.