↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of standard, quantitative and digital PCR in the detection of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Comparison of standard, quantitative and digital PCR in the detection of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis
Published in
Scientific Reports, September 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep34554
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Gut colonization with enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF) appears to be associated with the development of colorectal cancer. However, differences in carriage rates are seen with various testing methods and sampling sites. We compared standard PCR, SYBR green and TaqMan quantitative PCR (qPCR) and digital PCR (dPCR) in detecting the B. fragilis toxin (bft) gene from cultured ETBF, and from matched luminal and faecal stool samples from 19 colorectal cancer patients. Bland-Altman analysis found that all three quantitative methods performed comparably in detecting bft from purified bacterial DNA, with the same limits of detection (<1 copy/μl). However, SYBR qPCR under-performed compared to TaqMan qPCR and dPCR in detecting bft in clinical stool samples; 13/38 samples were reported positive by SYBR, compared to 35 and 36 samples by TaqMan and dPCR, respectively. TaqMan qPCR and dPCR gave bft copy numbers that were 48-fold and 75-fold higher for the same samples than SYBR qPCR, respectively (p < 0.001). For samples that were bft-positive in both fecal and luminal stools, there was no difference in relative abundance between the sites, by any method tested. From our findings, we recommend the use of TaqMan qPCR as the preferred method to detect ETBF from clinical stool samples.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 25 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 24 32%
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 01 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,473,108
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#93,563
of 123,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,709
of 322,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,637
of 3,525 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 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 123,683 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 322,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,525 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.