↓ Skip to main content

Unexpected DNA Loss Mediated by the DNA Binding Activity of Ribonuclease A

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Unexpected DNA Loss Mediated by the DNA Binding Activity of Ribonuclease A
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0115008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federico Donà, Jonathan Houseley

Abstract

Ribonuclease A (RNase A) is widely used in molecular biology research both for analytical assays and for nucleic acid preparation. The catalytic mechanism of RNase A is well understood and absolutely precludes activity on DNA; however anecdotal reports of DNA degradation by RNase A are not uncommon. Here we describe a mechanism by which RNase A treatment can lead to apparent DNA degradation. This results from the surprising finding that RNase A remains functional in a phenol:chloroform mixture, to our knowledge the only enzyme that survives this highly denaturing solvent environment. Although RNase A does not cleave the DNA backbone it is capable of binding to DNA, forming stable RNase A-DNA complexes that partition to the interphase or organic phase during phenol:chloroform purification. The unexpected survival of the RNase A DNA-binding activity in phenol means that these complexes are not dissolved and a substantial amount of RNase A-bound DNA is permanently removed from the aqueous phase and lost on phase separation. This effect will impact DNA recovery from multiple procedures and is likely to represent a source of sequence bias in genome-wide studies. Our results also indicate that the results of analytical studies performed using RNase A must be considered with care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 20%
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 42 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 17 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 23 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,125,092
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#25,816
of 224,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,164
of 370,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#419
of 3,864 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 370,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,864 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.