Comparative Genomics
Springer US
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
Attention Score in Context
| Chapter title |
Comparative Analyses of Bacteriophage Genomes.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 14 |
| Book title |
Comparative Genomics
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2024
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-0716-3838-5_14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-07-163837-8, 978-1-07-163838-5
|
| Authors |
Fernando Pacheco Nobre Rossi, Vinicius Sousa Flores, Guillermo Uceda-Campos, Deyvid Emanuel Amgarten, João Carlos Setubal, Aline Maria da Silva, Rossi, Fernando Pacheco Nobre, Flores, Vinicius Sousa, Uceda-Campos, Guillermo, Amgarten, Deyvid Emanuel, Setubal, João Carlos, da Silva, Aline Maria |
| Abstract |
Bacterial viruses (bacteriophages or phages) are the most abundant and diverse biological entities on Earth. There is a renewed worldwide interest in phage-centered research motivated by their enormous potential as antimicrobials to cope with multidrug-resistant pathogens. An ever-growing number of complete phage genomes are becoming available, derived either from newly isolated phages (cultivated phages) or recovered from metagenomic sequencing data (uncultivated phages). Robust comparative analysis is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of genotypic variations of phages and their related evolutionary processes, and to investigate the interaction mechanisms between phages and their hosts. In this chapter, we present a protocol for phage comparative genomics employing tools selected out of the many currently available, focusing on complete genomes of phages classified in the class Caudoviricetes. This protocol provides accurate identification of similarities, differences, and patterns among new and previously known complete phage genomes as well as phage clustering and taxonomic classification. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 June 2024.
All research outputs
#8,875,607
of 26,205,030 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,829
of 14,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,139
of 374,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#44
of 343 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,205,030 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,403 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 374,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 343 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.