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
| Chapter title |
Next Generation Sequencing Data and Proteogenomics.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 2 |
| Book title |
Proteogenomics
|
| Published in |
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-3-319-42316-6_2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-3-31-942314-2, 978-3-31-942316-6
|
| Authors |
Kelly V. Ruggles, David Fenyö |
| Editors |
Ákos Végvári |
| Abstract |
The field of proteogenomics has been driven by combined advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) and proteomic methods. NGS technologies are now both rapid and affordable, making it feasible to include sequencing in the clinic and academic research setting. Alongside the improvements in sequencing technologies, methods in high throughput proteomics have increased the depth of coverage and the speed of analysis. The integration of these data types using continuously evolving bioinformatics methods allows for improvements in gene and protein annotation, and a more comprehensive understanding of biological systems. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,385,802
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,508
of 4,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,977
of 322,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#60
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 322,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.