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 |
Poliovirus
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 11 |
| Book title |
Poliovirus
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3292-4_11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3291-7, 978-1-4939-3292-4
|
| Authors |
Jorba, Jaume, Jaume Jorba |
| Abstract |
Comparative genomic sequencing is a major surveillance tool in the Polio Laboratory Network. Due to the rapid evolution of polioviruses (~1 % per year), pathways of virus transmission can be reconstructed from the pathways of genomic evolution. Here, we describe three main phylogenetic methods; estimation of genetic distances, reconstruction of a maximum-likelihood (ML) tree, and estimation of substitution rates using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). The data set used consists of complete capsid sequences from a survey of poliovirus sequences available in GenBank. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 23% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 15% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 15% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
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 06 January 2024.
All research outputs
#14,439,214
of 25,119,447 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#3,705
of 14,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,232
of 405,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#333
of 1,463 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,119,447 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,117 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 405,582 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,463 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.