↓ Skip to main content

Quantification of bacterial fluorescence using independent calibrants

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 X users

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Quantification of bacterial fluorescence using independent calibrants
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0199432
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Fluorescent reporters are commonly used to quantify activities or properties of both natural and engineered cells. Fluorescence is still typically reported only in arbitrary or normalized units, however, rather than in units defined using an independent calibrant, which is problematic for scientific reproducibility and even more so when it comes to effective engineering. In this paper, we report an interlaboratory study showing that simple, low-cost unit calibration protocols can remedy this situation, producing comparable units and dramatic improvements in precision over both arbitrary and normalized units. Participants at 92 institutions around the world measured fluorescence from E. coli transformed with three engineered test plasmids, plus positive and negative controls, using simple, low-cost unit calibration protocols designed for use with a plate reader and/or flow cytometer. In addition to providing comparable units, use of an independent calibrant allows quantitative use of positive and negative controls to identify likely instances of protocol failure. The use of independent calibrants thus allows order of magnitude improvements in precision, narrowing the 95% confidence interval of measurements in our study up to 600-fold compared to normalized units.

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 profiles of 34 X users 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 106 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 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 25%
Student > Bachelor 19 18%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Master 12 11%
Professor 6 6%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 13%
Engineering 7 7%
Physics and Astronomy 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 23 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,017,774
of 32,440,278 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#22,311
of 216,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,929
of 361,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#402
of 3,305 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,440,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 361,618 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,305 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.