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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of the novel dipstick DNA extraction technique with two established techniques for use in biological barcoding
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Biology Reports, September 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11033-019-05083-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Avrie Martello, Brett Lambert, Clifton Johnston, Jacob Cutler, Christof F. Stumpf |
| Abstract |
The novel dipstick DNA extraction method was tested for its reliability and usability for biological barcoding in comparison to a commercial kit and to a simplified isopropanol precipitation method using crayfish gill tissue. Following DNA extraction, the mitochondrial COI-gene was amplified in a PCR-reaction using a standard set of universal invertebrate primers. All three extraction techniques resulted in successful amplifications. With the dipstick method, PCR immediately follows the very brief DNA extraction technique. We suggest that the dipstick method is an affordable, efficient, and reliable DNA extraction method uniquely suited for biological barcoding that results in reliable and reproducible amplification for downstream applications such as sequencing. Additional tests on crayfish with primers for different parts of the mitochondrial genome and on fish using specific fish COI-primers confirmed these findings. Due to the few steps involved in the DNA extraction procedure the dipstick technique is also highly recommended for high school and university biology courses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 16% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
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 28 September 2019.
All research outputs
#18,692,168
of 23,164,913 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Biology Reports
#1,636
of 2,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,684
of 346,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Biology Reports
#29
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,164,913 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,973 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 346,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.