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 |
An efficient modified method for plant leaf lipid extraction results in improved recovery of phosphatidic acid
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Methods, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13007-018-0282-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sunitha Shiva, Regina Enninful, Mary R. Roth, Pamela Tamura, Krishna Jagadish, Ruth Welti |
| Abstract |
Lipidomics plays an important role in understanding plant adaptation to different stresses and improving our knowledge of the genes underlying lipid metabolism. Lipidomics involves lipid extraction, sample preparation, mass spectrometry analysis, and data interpretation. One of the practical challenges for large-scale lipidomics studies on plant leaves is the requirement of an efficient and rapid extraction method. A single-extraction method with a polar solvent mixture gives results comparable to a widely used, multi-extraction method when tested on bothArabidopsis thalianaandSorghum bicolorleaf tissue. This single-extraction method uses a mixture of 30 parts chloroform, 25 parts isopropanol, 41.5 parts methanol, and 3.5 parts water (v/v/v/v) and a 24-h extraction time. Neither inclusion of ammonium acetate nor inclusion of acetic acid increased extraction efficiency. The extract produced by this method can be used for analysis by mass spectrometry without a solvent evaporation step. The amount of lipid extracted, including phosphatidic acid, is comparable to widely used, more labor-intensive methods. The single-extraction protocol is less laborious, reducing the potential for human error. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 112 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 21% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 19% |
| Chemistry | 12 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 37 | 33% |
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 14 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,092,894
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#680
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,500
of 446,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 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 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 446,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.