↓ Skip to main content

Optimization of a sample processing protocol for recovery of Bacillus anthracis spores from soil

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Microbiological Methods, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Optimization of a sample processing protocol for recovery of Bacillus anthracis spores from soil
Published in
Journal of Microbiological Methods, August 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.08.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin E. Silvestri, David Feldhake, Dale Griffin, John Lisle, Tonya L. Nichols, Sanjiv R. Shah, Adin Pemberton, Frank W. Schaefer

Abstract

Following a release of Bacillus anthracis spores into the environment, there is a potential for lasting environmental contamination in soils. There is a need for detection protocols for B. anthracis in environmental matrices. However, identification of B. anthracis within a soil is a difficult task. Processing soil samples helps to remove debris, chemical components, and biological impurities that can interfere with microbiological detection. This study aimed to optimize a previously used indirect processing protocol, which included a series of washing and centrifugation steps. Optimization of the protocol included: identifying an ideal extraction diluent and evaluating variation in the number of wash steps, variation in the initial centrifugation speed, sonication and shaking mechanisms. The optimized protocol was demonstrated at two laboratories in order to evaluate the recovery of spores from loamy and sandy soils. The new protocol demonstrated an improved limit of detection for loamy and sandy soils over the non-optimized protocol with an approximate matrix limit of detection at 14spores/g of soil. There were no significant differences overall between the two laboratories for either soil type, suggesting that the processing protocol will be robust enough to use at multiple laboratories while achieving comparable recoveries.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Philippines 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 26%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Environmental Science 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 29%
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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Microbiological Methods
#1,897
of 2,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,388
of 354,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Microbiological Methods
#35
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 354,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.