↓ Skip to main content

Bioinformatics for DNA Sequence Analysis

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 7: Trees from trees: construction of phylogenetic supertrees using clann.
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
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
Trees from trees: construction of phylogenetic supertrees using clann.
Chapter number 7
Book title
Bioinformatics for DNA Sequence Analysis
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, February 2009
DOI 10.1007/978-1-59745-251-9_7
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-58829-910-9, 978-1-59745-251-9
Authors

Christopher J. Creevey, James O. McInerney, Creevey CJ, McInerney JO, Creevey, Christopher J., McInerney, James O.

Editors

David Posada

Abstract

Supertree methods combine multiple phylogenetic trees to produce the overall best "supertree." They can be used to combine phylogenetic information from datasets only partially overlapping and from disparate sources (like molecular and morphological data), or to break down problems thought to be computationally intractable. Some of the longest standing phylogenetic conundrums are now being brought to light using supertree approaches. We describe the most widely used supertree methods implemented in the software program "clann" and provide a step by step tutorial for investigating phylogenetic information and reconstructing the best supertree. Clann is freely available for Windows, Mac and Unix/Linux operating systems under the GNU public licence at (http://bioinf.nuim.ie/software/clann).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 5%
Czechia 2 3%
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Colombia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 58 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 32%
Researcher 19 26%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 66%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Computer Science 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 6 8%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,872,697
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#966
of 13,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,760
of 93,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#2
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,089 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 93,160 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 94% of its contemporaries.