↓ Skip to main content

Comprehensive evaluation of extracellular small RNA isolation methods from serum in high throughput sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Comprehensive evaluation of extracellular small RNA isolation methods from serum in high throughput sequencing
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-3470-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Guo, Kasey Vickers, Yanhua Xiong, Shilin Zhao, Quanhu Sheng, Pan Zhang, Wanding Zhou, Charles R. Flynn

Abstract

DNA and RNA fractions from whole blood, serum and plasma are increasingly popular analytes that are currently under investigation for their utility in the diagnosis and staging of disease. Small non-coding ribonucleic acids (sRNAs), specifically microRNAs (miRNAs) and their variant isoforms (isomiRs), and transfer RNA (tRNA)-derived small RNAs (tDRs) comprise a repertoire of molecules particularly promising in this regard. In this designed study, we compared the performance of various methods and kits for isolating circulating extracellular sRNAs (ex-sRNAs). ex-sRNAs from one healthy individual were isolated using five different isolation kits: Qiagen Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, ThermoFisher Scientific Ambion TRIzol LS Reagent, Qiagen miRNEasy, QiaSymphony RNA extraction kit and the Exiqon MiRCURY RNA Isolation Kit. Each isolation method was repeated four times. A total of 20 small RNA sequencing (sRNAseq) libraries were constructed, sequenced and compared using a rigorous bioinformatics approach. The Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit had the greatest miRNA isolation variability, but had the lowest isolation variability for other RNA classes (isomiRs, tDRs, and other miscellaneous sRNAs (osRNA). However, the Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit consistently generated the fewest number of reads mapped to the genome, as compared to the best-performing method, Ambion TRIzol, which mapped 10% of the miRNAs, 7.2% of the tDRs and 23.1% of the osRNAs. The other methods performed intermediary, with QiaSymphony mapping 14% of the osRNAs, and miRNEasy mapping 4.6% of the tDRs and 2.9% of the miRNAs, achieving the second best kit performance rating overall. In summary, each isolation kit displayed different performance characteristics that could be construed as biased or advantageous, depending upon the downstream application and number of samples that require processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Other 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 28%
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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,566,023
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,717
of 10,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,053
of 425,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#102
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,793 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 425,356 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 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 51% of its contemporaries.