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 |
Improved method for genomic DNA extraction for Opuntia Mill. (Cactaceae)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Methods, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13007-017-0234-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
César Ramiro Martínez-González, Rosario Ramírez-Mendoza, Jaime Jiménez-Ramírez, Clemente Gallegos-Vázquez, Isolda Luna-Vega |
| Abstract |
Genomic DNA extracted from species of Cactaceae is often contaminated with significant amounts of mucilage and pectin. Pectin is one of the main components of cellular walls, whereas mucilage is a complex polysaccharide with a ramified structure. Thus, pectin- and mucilage-free extraction of DNA is a key step for further downstream PCR-based analyses. We tested our DNA extraction method on cladode tissue (juvenile, adult, and herbaria exemplars) of 17 species of Opuntia Mill., which are characterized by a large quantity of pectin and mucilage. We developed a method for the extraction of gDNA free of inhibitory compounds common in species of Opuntia Mill., such as pectin and mucilage. Compared to previously extraction protocols, our method produced higher yields of high-quality genomic DNA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 34% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
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 20 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,366,228
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#717
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,151
of 324,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#22
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 324,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.