↓ Skip to main content

Effects of freezer storage time on levels of complement biomarkers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Effects of freezer storage time on levels of complement biomarkers
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2885-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angharad R. Morgan, Caroline O’Hagan, Samuel Touchard, Simon Lovestone, B. Paul Morgan

Abstract

There is uncertainty regarding how stable complement analytes are during long-term storage at - 80 °C. As part of our work program we have measured 17 complement biomarkers (C1q, C1 inhibitor, C3, C3a, iC3b, C4, C5, C9, FB, FD, FH, FI, TCC, Bb, sCR1, sCR2, Clusterin) and the benchmark inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) in a large set of plasma samples (n = 720) that had been collected, processed and subsequently stored at - 80 °C over a period of 6.6-10.6 years, prior to laboratory analysis. The biomarkers were measured using solid-phase enzyme immunoassays with a combination of multiplex assays using the MesoScale Discovery Platform and single-plex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). As part of a post hoc analysis of extrinsic factors (co-variables) affecting the analyses we investigated the impact of freezer storage time on the values obtained for each complement analyte. With the exception of five analytes (C4, C9, sCR2, clusterin and CRP), storage time was significantly correlated with measured plasma concentrations. For ten analytes: C3, FI, FB, FD, C5, sCR1, C3a, iC3b, Bb and TCC, storage time was positively correlated with concentration and for three analytes: FH, C1q, and C1 inhibitor, storage time was negatively correlated with concentration. The results suggest that information on storage time should be regarded as an important co-variable and taken into consideration when analysing data to look for associations of complement biomarker levels and disease or other outcomes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,919,786
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,850
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,687
of 330,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#93
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 330,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.