↓ Skip to main content

DNA fingerprinting in botany: past, present, future

Overview of attention for article published in Investigative Genetics, January 2014
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 (94th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
397 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
DNA fingerprinting in botany: past, present, future
Published in
Investigative Genetics, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/2041-2223-5-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilde Nybom, Kurt Weising, Björn Rotter

Abstract

Almost three decades ago Alec Jeffreys published his seminal Nature papers on the use of minisatellite probes for DNA fingerprinting of humans (Jeffreys and colleagues Nature 1985, 314:67-73 and Nature 1985, 316:76-79). The new technology was soon adopted for many other organisms including plants, and when Hilde Nybom, Kurt Weising and Alec Jeffreys first met at the very First International Conference on DNA Fingerprinting in Berne, Switzerland, in 1990, everybody was enthusiastic about the novel method that allowed us for the first time to discriminate between humans, animals, plants and fungi on the individual level using DNA markers. A newsletter coined "Fingerprint News" was launched, T-shirts were sold, and the proceedings of the Berne conference filled a first book on "DNA fingerprinting: approaches and applications". Four more conferences were about to follow, one on each continent, and Alec Jeffreys of course was invited to all of them. Since these early days, methodologies have undergone a rapid evolution and diversification. A multitude of techniques have been developed, optimized, and eventually abandoned when novel and more efficient and/or more reliable methods appeared. Despite some overlap between the lifetimes of the different technologies, three phases can be defined that coincide with major technological advances. Whereas the first phase of DNA fingerprinting ("the past") was dominated by restriction fragment analysis in conjunction with Southern blot hybridization, the advent of the PCR in the late 1980s gave way to the development of PCR-based single- or multi-locus profiling techniques in the second phase. Given that many routine applications of plant DNA fingerprinting still rely on PCR-based markers, we here refer to these methods as "DNA fingerprinting in the present", and include numerous examples in the present review. The beginning of the third phase actually dates back to 2005, when several novel, highly parallel DNA sequencing strategies were developed that increased the throughput over current Sanger sequencing technology 1000-fold and more. High-speed DNA sequencing was soon also exploited for DNA fingerprinting in plants, either in terms of facilitated marker development, or directly in the sense of "genotyping-by-sequencing". Whereas these novel approaches are applied at an ever increasing rate also in non-model species, they are still far from routine, and we therefore treat them here as "DNA fingerprinting in the future".

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 397 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 <1%
Poland 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 378 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 86 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 16%
Student > Master 53 13%
Student > Bachelor 44 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 4%
Other 64 16%
Unknown 72 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 204 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 14%
Chemistry 12 3%
Environmental Science 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 85 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,714,543
of 25,432,721 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Genetics
#29
of 94 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,826
of 318,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Genetics
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,432,721 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 94 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 318,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.