↓ Skip to main content

Eukaryotic gene invasion by a bacterial mobile insertion sequence element IS2 during cloning into a plasmid vector

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Integrity, May 2010
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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Eukaryotic gene invasion by a bacterial mobile insertion sequence element IS2 during cloning into a plasmid vector
Published in
Genome Integrity, May 2010
DOI 10.1186/2041-9414-1-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Senejani AG, Sweasy JB, Alireza G Senejani, Joann B Sweasy

Abstract

Escherichia coli (E. coli) are commonly used as hosts for DNA cloning and sequencing. Upon transformation of E. coli with recombined vector carrying a gene of interest, the bacteria multiply the gene of interest while maintaining the integrity of its content. During the subcloning of a mouse genomic fragment into a plasmid vector, we noticed that the size of the insert increased significantly upon replication in E. coli. The sequence of the insert was determined and found to contain a novel DNA sequence within the mouse genomic insert. A BLAST search of GenBank revealed the novel sequence to be that of the Insertion Sequence 2 (IS2) element from E. coli that was likely inserted during replication in that organism. Importantly, a detailed search of GenBank shows that the IS2 is present within many eukaryotic nucleotide sequences, and in many cases, has been annotated as being part of the protein. The results of this study suggest that one must perform additional careful analysis of the sequence results using BLAST comparisons, and further verification of gene annotation before submission into the GenBank.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Germany 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Other 2 15%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 23%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Chemistry 1 8%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,329,140
of 11,774,064 outputs
Outputs from Genome Integrity
#1
of 13 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,723
of 133,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Integrity
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,774,064 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one scored the same or higher as 12 of them.
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 133,833 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them