| Title |
Validation of extraction methods for total RNA and miRNA from bovine blood prior to quantitative gene expression analyses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biotechnology Techniques, September 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10529-009-0130-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Hammerle-Fickinger, Irmgard Riedmaier, Christiane Becker, Heinrich H. D. Meyer, Michael W. Pfaffl, Susanne E. Ulbrich |
| Abstract |
The benefit and precision of blood diagnosis by quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is limited by sampling procedures and RNA extraction methods. We have compared five different RNA extraction protocols from bovine blood regarding RNA and miRNA yield, quality, and most reproducible data in the qRT-PCR with the lowest point of quantification. Convincing results in terms of highest quantity, quality, and best performance for mRNA qPCR were obtained by leukocyte extraction following blood lysis as well as extraction of PAXgene stabilized blood. The best microRNA qPCR results were obtained for samples extracted by the leukocyte extraction method. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 107 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 46 | 39% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 49 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 10% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 18% |
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 07 February 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Techniques
#2,205
of 2,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,729
of 106,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Techniques
#23
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,762 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 106,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.