↓ Skip to main content

A tale of three next generation sequencing platforms: comparison of Ion torrent, pacific biosciences and illumina MiSeq sequencers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 10,549)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
95 tweeters
patent
11 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
18 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1475 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4061 Mendeley
citeulike
34 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
A tale of three next generation sequencing platforms: comparison of Ion torrent, pacific biosciences and illumina MiSeq sequencers
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-13-341
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Quail, Miriam E Smith, Paul Coupland, Thomas D Otto, Simon R Harris, Thomas R Connor, Anna Bertoni, Harold P Swerdlow, Yong Gu

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology has revolutionized genomic and genetic research. The pace of change in this area is rapid with three major new sequencing platforms having been released in 2011: Ion Torrent's PGM, Pacific Biosciences' RS and the Illumina MiSeq. Here we compare the results obtained with those platforms to the performance of the Illumina HiSeq, the current market leader. In order to compare these platforms, and get sufficient coverage depth to allow meaningful analysis, we have sequenced a set of 4 microbial genomes with mean GC content ranging from 19.3 to 67.7%. Together, these represent a comprehensive range of genome content. Here we report our analysis of that sequence data in terms of coverage distribution, bias, GC distribution, variant detection and accuracy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 4,061 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 68 2%
United Kingdom 39 <1%
Germany 27 <1%
Brazil 25 <1%
Spain 17 <1%
Netherlands 16 <1%
Canada 13 <1%
France 9 <1%
Denmark 8 <1%
Other 105 3%
Unknown 3734 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 968 24%
Researcher 796 20%
Student > Master 664 16%
Student > Bachelor 456 11%
Other 198 5%
Other 590 15%
Unknown 389 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1906 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 804 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 216 5%
Computer Science 136 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 119 3%
Other 394 10%
Unknown 486 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 130. 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 04 October 2022.
All research outputs
#260,399
of 22,444,133 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#21
of 10,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,601
of 255,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#2
of 516 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,444,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,549 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 255,404 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 516 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 99% of its contemporaries.