↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, April 2018
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of methods used to unveil the genetic and metabolic pool in the built environment
Published in
Microbiome, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40168-018-0453-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cinta Gomez-Silvan, Marcus H. Y. Leung, Katherine A. Grue, Randeep Kaur, Xinzhao Tong, Patrick K. H. Lee, Gary L. Andersen

Abstract

A majority of indoor residential microbes originate from humans, pets, and outdoor air and are not adapted to the built environment (BE). Consequently, a large portion of the microbes identified by DNA-based methods are either dead or metabolically inactive. Although many exceptions have been noted, the ribosomal RNA fraction of the sample is more likely to represent either viable or metabolically active cells. We examined methodological variations in sample processing using a defined, mock BE microbial community to better understand the scope of technique-based vs. biological-based differences in both ribosomal transcript (rRNA) and gene (DNA) sequence community analysis. Based on in vitro tests, a protocol was adopted for the analysis of the genetic and metabolic pool (DNA vs. rRNA) of air and surface microbiomes within a residential setting. We observed differences in DNA/RNA co-extraction efficiency for individual microbes, but overall, a greater recovery of rRNA using FastPrep (> 50%). Samples stored with various preservation methods at - 80°C experienced a rapid decline in nucleic acid recovery starting within the first week, although post-extraction rRNA had no significant degradation when treated with RNAStable. We recommend that co-extraction samples be processed as quickly as possible after collection. The in vivo analysis revealed significant differences in the two components (genetic and metabolic pool) in terms of taxonomy, community structure, and microbial association networks. Rare taxa present in the genetic pool showed higher metabolic potential (RNA:DNA ratio), whereas commonly detected taxa of outdoor origins based on DNA sequencing, especially taxa of the Sphingomonadales order, were present in lower relative abundances in the viable community. Although methodological variations in sample preparations are high, large differences between the DNA and RNA fractions of the total microbial community demonstrate that direct examination of rRNA isolated from a residential BE microbiome has the potential to identify the more likely viable or active portion of the microbial community. In an environment that has primarily dead and metabolically inactive cells, we suggest that the rRNA fraction of BE samples is capable of providing a more ecologically relevant insight into the factors that drive indoor microbial community dynamics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 18%
Environmental Science 14 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Engineering 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 27 31%
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 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,931,085
of 24,093,053 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#756
of 1,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,532
of 300,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#33
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,093,053 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 1,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 300,331 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.