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
| Title |
Benchmarking cryo-EM Single Particle Analysis Workflow
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmolb.2018.00050 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Y. Kim, William J. Rice, Edward T. Eng, Mykhailo Kopylov, Anchi Cheng, Ashleigh M. Raczkowski, Kelsey D. Jordan, Daija Bobe, Clinton S. Potter, Bridget Carragher |
| Abstract |
Cryo electron microscopy facilities running multiple instruments and serving users with varying skill levels need a robust and reliable method for benchmarking both the hardware and software components of their single particle analysis workflow. The workflow is complex, with many bottlenecks existing at the specimen preparation, data collection and image analysis steps; the samples and grid preparation can be of unpredictable quality, there are many different protocols for microscope and camera settings, and there is a myriad of software programs for analysis that can depend on dozens of settings chosen by the user. For this reason, we believe it is important to benchmark the entire workflow, using a standard sample and standard operating procedures, on a regular basis. This provides confidence that all aspects of the pipeline are capable of producing maps to high resolution. Here we describe benchmarking procedures using a test sample, rabbit muscle aldolase. |
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 States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 107 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 29 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 44 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 32 | 30% |
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 21 October 2019.
All research outputs
#13,038,949
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#798
of 3,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,025
of 329,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 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 3,905 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 329,875 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.