↓ Skip to main content

Reduction of the contaminant fraction of DNA obtained from an ancient giant panda bone

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Reduction of the contaminant fraction of DNA obtained from an ancient giant panda bone
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-3061-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolas Basler, Georgios Xenikoudakis, Michael V. Westbury, Lingfeng Song, Guilian Sheng, Axel Barlow

Abstract

A key challenge in ancient DNA research is massive microbial DNA contamination from the deposition site which accumulates post mortem in the study organism's remains. Two simple and cost-effective methods to enrich the relative endogenous fraction of DNA in ancient samples involve treatment of sample powder with either bleach or Proteinase K pre-digestion prior to DNA extraction. Both approaches have yielded promising but varying results in other studies. Here, we contribute data on the performance of these methods using a comprehensive and systematic series of experiments applied to a single ancient bone fragment from a giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Bleach and pre-digestion treatments increased the endogenous DNA content up to ninefold. However, the absolute amount of DNA retrieved was dramatically reduced by all treatments. We also observed reduced DNA damage patterns in pre-treated libraries compared to untreated ones, resulting in longer mean fragment lengths and reduced thymine over-representation at fragment ends. Guanine-cytosine (GC) contents of both mapped and total reads are consistent between treatments and conform to general expectations, indicating no obvious biasing effect of the applied methods. Our results therefore confirm the value of bleach and pre-digestion as tools in palaeogenomic studies, providing sufficient material is available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 24%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,832,116
of 24,862,067 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,839
of 4,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,831
of 451,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#69
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,862,067 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 451,874 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 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 58% of its contemporaries.