↓ Skip to main content

Poisonous or non-poisonous plants? DNA-based tools and applications for accurate identification

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Legal Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Poisonous or non-poisonous plants? DNA-based tools and applications for accurate identification
Published in
International Journal of Legal Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00414-016-1460-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerio Mezzasalma, Ioannis Ganopoulos, Andrea Galimberti, Laura Cornara, Emanuele Ferri, Massimo Labra

Abstract

Plant exposures are among the most frequently reported cases to poison control centres worldwide. This is a growing condition due to recent societal trends oriented towards the consumption of wild plants as food, cosmetics, or medicine. At least three general causes of plant poisoning can be identified: plant misidentification, introduction of new plant-based supplements and medicines with no controls about their safety, and the lack of regulation for the trading of herbal and phytochemical products. Moreover, an efficient screening for the occurrence of plants poisonous to humans is also desirable at the different stages of the food supply chain: from the raw material to the final transformed product. A rapid diagnosis of intoxication cases is necessary in order to provide the most reliable treatment. However, a precise taxonomic characterization of the ingested species is often challenging. In this review, we provide an overview of the emerging DNA-based tools and technologies to address the issue of poisonous plant identification. Specifically, classic DNA barcoding and its applications using High Resolution Melting (Bar-HRM) ensure high universality and rapid response respectively, whereas High Throughput Sequencing techniques (HTS) provide a complete characterization of plant residues in complex matrices. The pros and cons of each approach have been evaluated with the final aim of proposing a general user's guide to molecular identification directed to different stakeholder categories interested in the diagnostics of poisonous plants.

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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Lecturer 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 15%
Chemistry 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 27 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,800,096
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#180
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,992
of 312,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 312,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.