↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for Microbial Community Profiling with an Application to Pediatric Bronchoalveolar Lavage Samples

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
5 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for Microbial Community Profiling with an Application to Pediatric Bronchoalveolar Lavage Samples
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0034605
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Willner, Joshua Daly, David Whiley, Keith Grimwood, Claire E. Wainwright, Philip Hugenholtz

Abstract

Barcoded amplicon sequencing is rapidly becoming a standard method for profiling microbial communities, including the human respiratory microbiome. While this approach has less bias than standard cultivation, several steps can introduce variation including the type of DNA extraction method used. Here we assessed five different extraction methods on pediatric bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples and a mock community comprised of nine bacterial genera to determine method reproducibility and detection limits for these typically low complexity communities. Additionally, using the mock community, we were able to evaluate contamination and select a relative abundance cut-off threshold based on the geometric distribution that optimizes the trade off between detecting bona fide operational taxonomic units and filtering out spurious ones. Using this threshold, the majority of genera in the mock community were predictably detected by all extraction methods including the hard-to-lyse Gram-positive genus Staphylococcus. Differences between extraction methods were significantly greater than between technical replicates for both the mock community and BAL samples emphasizing the importance of using a standardized methodology for microbiome studies. However, regardless of method used, individual patients retained unique diagnostic profiles. Furthermore, despite being stored as raw frozen samples for over five years, community profiles from BAL samples were consistent with historical culturing results. The culture-independent profiling of these samples also identified a number of anaerobic genera that are gaining acceptance as being part of the respiratory microbiome. This study should help guide researchers to formulate sampling, extraction and analysis strategies for respiratory and other human microbiome samples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 3%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 265 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 63 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 20%
Student > Master 48 17%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 29 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 122 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 20 7%
Environmental Science 10 4%
Other 23 8%
Unknown 41 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,106,457
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#26,702
of 196,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,181
of 162,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#444
of 3,658 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 162,121 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,658 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.