↓ Skip to main content

Approaching the taxonomic affiliation of unidentified sequences in public databases – an example from the mycorrhizal fungi

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2005
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Approaching the taxonomic affiliation of unidentified sequences in public databases – an example from the mycorrhizal fungi
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2005
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-6-178
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Henrik Nilsson, Erik Kristiansson, Martin Ryberg, Karl-Henrik Larsson

Abstract

During the last few years, DNA sequence analysis has become one of the primary means of taxonomic identification of species, particularly so for species that are minute or otherwise lack distinct, readily obtainable morphological characters. Although the number of sequences available for comparison in public databases such as GenBank increases exponentially, only a minuscule fraction of all organisms have been sequenced, leaving taxon sampling a momentous problem for sequence-based taxonomic identification. When querying GenBank with a set of unidentified sequences, a considerable proportion typically lack fully identified matches, forming an ever-mounting pile of sequences that the researcher will have to monitor manually in the hope that new, clarifying sequences have been submitted by other researchers. To alleviate these concerns, a project to automatically monitor select unidentified sequences in GenBank for taxonomic progress through repeated local BLAST searches was initiated. Mycorrhizal fungi--a field where species identification often is prohibitively complex--and the much used ITS locus were chosen as test bed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Canada 2 2%
Italy 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Algeria 1 <1%
Unknown 89 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Master 7 7%
Professor 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 63%
Environmental Science 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Computer Science 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 12 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 05 October 2010.
All research outputs
#680,100
of 5,028,713 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#527
of 2,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,126
of 93,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#20
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,028,713 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,897 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 93,553 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.