↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of an automated capillary system for Plasmodium vivax microsatellite genotyping

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Assessment of an automated capillary system for Plasmodium vivax microsatellite genotyping
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0842-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulo Manrique, Mari Hoshi, Manuel Fasabi, Oscar Nolasco, Pablo Yori, Martiza Calderón, Robert H. Gilman, Margaret N. Kosek, Joseph M. Vinetz, Dionicia Gamboa

Abstract

Several platforms have been used to generate the primary data for microsatellite analysis of malaria parasite genotypes. Each has relative advantages but share a limitation of being time- and cost-intensive. A commercially available automated capillary gel cartridge system was assessed in the microsatellite analysis of Plasmodium vivax diversity in the Peruvian Amazon. The reproducibility and accuracy of a commercially-available automated capillary system, QIAxcel, was assessed using a sequenced PCR product of 227 base pairs. This product was measured 42 times, then 27 P. vivax samples from Peruvian Amazon subjects were analyzed with this instrument using five informative microsatellites. Results from the QIAxcel system were compared with a Sanger-type sequencing machine, the ABI PRISM(®) 3100 Genetic Analyzer. Significant differences were seen between the sequenced amplicons and the results from the QIAxcel instrument. Different runs, plates and cartridges yielded significantly different results. Additionally, allele size decreased with each run by 0.045, or 1 bp, every three plates. QIAxcel and ABI PRISM systems differed in giving different values than those obtained by ABI PRISM, and too many (i.e. inaccurate) alleles per locus were also seen with the automated instrument. While P. vivax diversity could generally be estimated using an automated capillary gel cartridge system, the data demonstrate that this system is not sufficiently precise for reliably identifying parasite strains via microsatellite analysis. This conclusion reached after systematic analysis was due both to inadequate precision and poor reproducibility in measuring PCR product size.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 5 16%

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 22 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,961,233
of 13,215,649 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,740
of 3,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,447
of 237,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,215,649 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 3,862 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 237,700 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them