↓ Skip to main content

Direct Chloroplast Sequencing: Comparison of Sequencing Platforms and Analysis Tools for Whole Chloroplast Barcoding

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Direct Chloroplast Sequencing: Comparison of Sequencing Platforms and Analysis Tools for Whole Chloroplast Barcoding
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0110387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Brozynska, Agnelo Furtado, Robert James Henry

Abstract

Direct sequencing of total plant DNA using next generation sequencing technologies generates a whole chloroplast genome sequence that has the potential to provide a barcode for use in plant and food identification. Advances in DNA sequencing platforms may make this an attractive approach for routine plant identification. The HiSeq (Illumina) and Ion Torrent (Life Technology) sequencing platforms were used to sequence total DNA from rice to identify polymorphisms in the whole chloroplast genome sequence of a wild rice plant relative to cultivated rice (cv. Nipponbare). Consensus chloroplast sequences were produced by mapping sequence reads to the reference rice chloroplast genome or by de novo assembly and mapping of the resulting contigs to the reference sequence. A total of 122 polymorphisms (SNPs and indels) between the wild and cultivated rice chloroplasts were predicted by these different sequencing and analysis methods. Of these, a total of 102 polymorphisms including 90 SNPs were predicted by both platforms. Indels were more variable with different sequencing methods, with almost all discrepancies found in homopolymers. The Ion Torrent platform gave no apparent false SNP but was less reliable for indels. The methods should be suitable for routine barcoding using appropriate combinations of sequencing platform and data analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 18%
Unspecified 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,241,019
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,339
of 194,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,637
of 258,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,349
of 5,170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 258,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.