↓ Skip to main content

Optimisation of sample storage and DNA extraction for human gut microbiota studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, May 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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.
Title
Optimisation of sample storage and DNA extraction for human gut microbiota studies
Published in
BMC Microbiology, May 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12866-021-02233-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jekaterina Kazantseva, Esther Malv, Aleksei Kaleda, Aili Kallastu, Anne Meikas

Abstract

New developments in next-generation sequencing technologies and massive data received from this approach open wide prospects for personalised medicine and nutrition studies. Metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiota is paramount for the characterization of human health and wellbeing. Despite the intensive research, there is a huge gap and inconsistency between different studies due to the non-standardised and biased pipeline. Methodical and systemic understanding of every stage in the process is necessary to overcome all bottlenecks and grey zones of gut microbiota studies, where all details and interactions between processes are important. Here we show that an inexpensive, but reliable iSeq 100 platform is an excellent tool to perform the analysis of the human gut microbiota by amplicon sequencing of the 16 S rRNA gene. Two commercial DNA extraction kits and different starting materials performed similarly regarding the taxonomic distribution of identified bacteria. DNA/RNA Shield reagent proved to be a reliable solution for stool samples collection, preservation, and storage, as the storage of faecal material in DNA/RNA Shield for three weeks at different temperatures and thawing cycles had a low impact on the bacterial distribution. Altogether, a thoroughly elaborated pipeline with close attention to details ensures high reproducibility with significant biological but not technical variations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 36 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 36 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 May 2021.
All research outputs
#13,626,177
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#1,222
of 3,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,101
of 449,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#29
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 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 3,256 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 449,310 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 69% of its contemporaries.