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 |
The near-quantitative sampling of genomic DNA from various food-borne Eubacteria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Microbiology, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12866-014-0326-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Irwin, Ly Nguyen, Yiping He, George Paoli, Andrew Gehring, Chin-Yi Chen |
| Abstract |
BackgroundThe disruption of the bacterial cell wall plays an important part in achieving quantitative extraction of DNA from Eubacteria essential for accurate analyses of genetic material recovered from environmental samples.ResultsIn this work we have tested a dozen commercial bacterial genomic DNA extraction methodologies on an average of 7.70¿×¿106 (±9.05%), 4.77¿×¿108 (±31.0%), and 5.93¿×¿108 (±4.69%) colony forming units (CFU) associated with 3 cultures (n¿=¿3) each of Brochothrix thermosphacta (Bt; Gram-positive), Shigella sonnei (Ss; Gram-negative), and Escherichia coli O79 (Ec; Gram-negative). We have utilized real-time PCR (qPCR) quantification with two specific sets of primers associated with the 16S rRNA ¿gene¿ to determine the number of copies CFU-1 by comparing the unknown target DNA qPCR results with standards for each primer set. Based upon statistical analyses of our results, we determined that the Agencourt Genfind v2, High Pure PCR Template Prep Kit, and Omnilyse methods consistently provided the best yield of genomic DNA ranging from 141 to 934, 8 to 21, and 16 to 27 16S rDNA copies CFU-1 for Bt, Ss, and Ec. If one assumes 6¿7 copies of the 16S rRNA gene per genome, between 1 and 3 genomes per actively dividing cell and¿¿¿100 cells CFU-1 for Bt (found to be a reasonable assumption using an optical method expounded upon herein) or between 1 and 2 cells CFU-1 for either Ss or Ec, then the Omnilyse procedure provided nearly quantitative extraction of genomic DNA from these isolates (934¿±¿19.9 copies CFU-1 for Bt; 20.8¿±¿2.68 copies CFU-1 for Ss; 26.9¿±¿3.39 copies CFU-1 for Ec). The Agencourt, High Pure, and Omnilyse technologies were subsequently assessed using 5 additional Gram-positive and 10 Gram-negative foodborne isolates (n¿=¿3) using a set of ¿universal¿ 16S rDNA primers.ConclusionOverall, the most notable DNA extraction method was found to be the Omnilyse procedure which is a ¿bead blender¿ technology involving high frequency agitation in the presence of zirconium silicate beads. |
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 States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
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 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,869,034
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#1,495
of 3,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,163
of 357,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#33
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,286 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. 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 357,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 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 53% of its contemporaries.