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 |
Saliva sampling in global clinical studies: the impact of low sampling volume on performance of DNA in downstream genotyping experiments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Genomics, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1755-8794-6-20 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J Pulford, Michael Mosteller, J David Briley, Kelley W Johansson, Anita J Nelsen |
| Abstract |
BACKGROUND: The collection of viable DNA samples is an essential element of any genetics research programme. Biological samples for DNA purification are now routinely collected in many studies with a variety of sampling methods available. Initial observation in this study suggested a reduced genotyping success rate of some saliva derived DNA samples when compared to blood derived DNA samples prompting further investigation. METHODS: Genotyping success rate was investigated to assess the suitability of using saliva samples in future safety and efficacy pharmacogenetics experiments. The Oragene(R) OG-300 DNA Self-Collection kit was used to collect and extract DNA from saliva from 1468 subjects enrolled in global clinical studies. Statistical analysis evaluated the impact of saliva sample volume of collection on the quality, yield, concentration and performance of saliva DNA in genotyping assays. RESULTS: Across 13 global clinical studies that utilized the Oragene(R) OG-300 DNA Self-Collection kit there was variability in the volume of saliva sample collection with ~31% of participants providing 0.5 mL of saliva, rather than the recommended 2 mL. While the majority of saliva DNA samples provided high quality genotype data, collection of 0.5 mL volumes of saliva contributed to DNA samples being significantly less likely to pass genotyping quality control standards. Assessment of DNA sample characteristics that may influence genotyping outcomes indicated that saliva sample volume, DNA purity and turbidity were independently associated with sample genotype pass rate, but that saliva collection volume had the greatest effect. CONCLUSION: When employing saliva sampling to obtain DNA, it is important to encourage all study participants to provide sufficient sample to minimize potential loss of data in downstream genotyping experiments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 June 2022.
All research outputs
#15,557,505
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#629
of 1,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,169
of 199,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,268 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 199,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 50% of its contemporaries.