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 |
Enhancer identification in mouse embryonic stem cells using integrative modeling of chromatin and genomic features
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-13-152 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chih-yu Chen, Quaid Morris, Jennifer A Mitchell |
| Abstract |
Epigenetic modifications, transcription factor (TF) availability and differences in chromatin folding influence how the genome is interpreted by the transcriptional machinery responsible for gene expression. Enhancers buried in non-coding regions are found to be associated with significant differences in histone marks between different cell types. In contrast, gene promoters show more uniform modifications across cell types. Here we used histone modification and chromatin-associated protein ChIP-Seq data sets in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells as well as genomic features to identify functional enhancer regions. Using co-bound sites of OCT4, SOX2 and NANOG (co-OSN, validated enhancers) and co-bound sites of MYC and MYCN (limited enhancer activity) as enhancer positive and negative training sets, we performed multinomial logistic regression with LASSO regularization to identify key features. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Sweden | 2 | 1% |
| France | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 168 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 60 | 33% |
| Researcher | 47 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 13% |
| Professor | 10 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 92 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 54 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,251,967
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,273
of 10,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,899
of 163,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#6
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,614 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 163,375 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.