↓ Skip to main content

Fast and Efficient Screening for Wheat Loss-of-Gene Mutants Using Multiplexed Melt Curve Analyses

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
6 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.
Article details
Title
Fast and Efficient Screening for Wheat Loss-of-Gene Mutants Using Multiplexed Melt Curve Analyses
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0159955
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study describes a new approach in the screening for loss-of-gene mutants in Heavy Ion Bombardment (HIB) mutant populations of genetically complex organisms such as hexaploid bread wheat using multiplexed single-color (SYBR Green) melt curve analyses. The assay was set up for three target genes to test its validity and applicability. For each gene, three genome-specific primer pairs (one for each genome) with distinct melt curves were developed and multiplexed. This allowed screening for "single null mutants" (plants with the target gene deleted in one of the three genomes) for all three genomes in a single reaction. The first two genes (α-Amylase 3 and Epsilon Cyclase) were used to test the approach as HIB null lines for all three genomes were already available for these. The third assay was successfully applied to identify new single null lines of the target gene α-Amylase 2 in an in-house HIB wheat collection. The use of SYBR Green greatly reduced the time and/or cost investment compared to other techniques and the approach proved highly suitable for high-throughput applications.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Other 1 17%
Student > Postgraduate 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 33%
Materials Science 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 July 2017.
All research outputs
#21,092,867
of 26,801,235 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#187,770
of 234,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,028
of 330,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,341
of 4,340 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,801,235 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. 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 330,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,340 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.