↓ Skip to main content

Marine Genomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 4: Marine Genomics
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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.
Chapter title
Marine Genomics
Chapter number 4
Book title
Marine Genomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3774-5_4
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-3772-1, 978-1-4939-3774-5
Authors

Cannon, Johanna Taylor, Kocot, Kevin Michael, Johanna Taylor Cannon, Kevin Michael Kocot

Editors

Sarah J. Bourlat

Abstract

This chapter presents a generalized protocol for conducting phylogenetic analyses using large-scale molecular datasets, specifically using transcriptome data from the Illumina sequencing platform. The general molecular lab bench protocol consists of RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, and sequencing, in this case via Illumina. After sequences have been obtained, bioinformatics methods are used to assemble raw reads, identify coding regions, and categorize sequences from different species into groups of orthologous genes (OGs). The specific OGs to be used for phylogenetic inference are selected using a custom shell script. Finally, the selected orthologous groups are concatenated into a supermatrix. Generalized methods for phylogenomic inference using maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference software are presented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 35%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,340,701
of 25,332,933 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#1,710
of 14,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,869
of 406,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#209
of 1,465 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,332,933 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,185 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. 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 406,635 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,465 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.