↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
88 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
442 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 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
Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota
Published in
Microbiome, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40168-016-0172-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abigail P. Lauder, Aoife M. Roche, Scott Sherrill-Mix, Aubrey Bailey, Alice L. Laughlin, Kyle Bittinger, Rita Leite, Michal A. Elovitz, Samuel Parry, Frederic D. Bushman

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested that bacteria associated with the placenta-a "placental microbiome"-may be important in reproductive health and disease. However, a challenge in working with specimens with low bacterial biomass, such as placental samples, is that some or all of the bacterial DNA may derive from contamination in dust or commercial reagents. To investigate this, we compared placental samples from healthy deliveries to a matched set of contamination controls, as well as to oral and vaginal samples from the same women. We quantified total 16S rRNA gene copies using quantitative PCR and found that placental samples and negative controls contained low and indistinguishable copy numbers. Oral and vaginal swab samples, in contrast, showed higher copy numbers. We carried out 16S rRNA gene sequencing and community analysis and found no separation between communities from placental samples and contamination controls, though oral and vaginal samples showed characteristic, distinctive composition. Two different DNA purification methods were compared with similar conclusions, though the composition of the contamination background differed. Authentically present microbiota should yield mostly similar results regardless of the purification method used-this was seen for oral samples, but no placental bacterial lineages were (1) shared between extraction methods, (2) present at >1 % of the total, and (3) present at greater abundance in placental samples than contamination controls. We conclude that for this sample set, using the methods described, we could not distinguish between placental samples and contamination introduced during DNA purification.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 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 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 409 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 93 22%
Researcher 67 16%
Student > Master 55 13%
Student > Bachelor 37 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 6%
Other 61 15%
Unknown 81 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 74 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 58 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 2%
Other 41 10%
Unknown 95 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#452,785
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#111
of 1,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,953
of 369,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 369,843 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 97% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.