↓ Skip to main content

PhiSiGns: an online tool to identify signature genes in phages and design PCR primers for examining phage diversity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
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
PhiSiGns: an online tool to identify signature genes in phages and design PCR primers for examining phage diversity
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bhakti Dwivedi, Robert Schmieder, Dawn B Goldsmith, Robert A Edwards, Mya Breitbart

Abstract

Phages (viruses that infect bacteria) have gained significant attention because of their abundance, diversity and important ecological roles. However, the lack of a universal gene shared by all phages presents a challenge for phage identification and characterization, especially in environmental samples where it is difficult to culture phage-host systems. Homologous conserved genes (or "signature genes") present in groups of closely-related phages can be used to explore phage diversity and define evolutionary relationships amongst these phages. Bioinformatic approaches are needed to identify candidate signature genes and design PCR primers to amplify those genes from environmental samples; however, there is currently no existing computational tool that biologists can use for this purpose.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Nepal 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 120 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 8 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 11%
Engineering 4 3%
Environmental Science 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 12 9%

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 18 August 2012.
All research outputs
#3,577,545
of 12,373,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,721
of 4,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,037
of 116,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,576 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 116,297 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 68% of its contemporaries.