↓ Skip to main content

Closing the loop: 3C versus DNA FISH

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
Title
Closing the loop: 3C versus DNA FISH
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13059-016-1081-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Giorgetti, Edith Heard

Abstract

Chromosome conformation capture (3C)-based techniques have revolutionized the field of nuclear organization, partly replacing DNA FISH as the method of choice for studying three-dimensional chromosome architecture. Although DNA FISH is commonly used for confirming 3C-based findings, the two techniques are conceptually and technically different and comparing their results is not trivial. Here, we discuss both 3C-based techniques and DNA FISH approaches to highlight their similarities and differences. We then describe the technical biases that affect each approach, and review the available reports that address their compatibility. Finally, we propose an experimental scheme for comparison of 3C and DNA FISH results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
France 2 1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 138 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 35%
Researcher 32 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Master 13 9%
Unspecified 11 7%
Other 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 61 40%
Unspecified 13 9%
Physics and Astronomy 5 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 6 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#963,640
of 12,341,272 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#1,050
of 2,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,648
of 267,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#143
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,341,272 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 267,982 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.