↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of DNA preservation methods for environmental bacterial community samples

Overview of attention for article published in FEMS Microbiology Ecology, October 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
339 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
Comparison of DNA preservation methods for environmental bacterial community samples
Published in
FEMS Microbiology Ecology, October 2012
DOI 10.1111/1574-6941.12008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. Gray, Zoe A. Pratte, Christina A. Kellogg

Abstract

Field collections of environmental samples, for example corals, for molecular microbial analyses present distinct challenges. The lack of laboratory facilities in remote locations is common, and preservation of microbial community DNA for later study is critical. A particular challenge is keeping samples frozen in transit. Five nucleic acid preservation methods that do not require cold storage were compared for effectiveness over time and ease of use. Mixed microbial communities of known composition were created and preserved by DNAgard(™), RNAlater(®), DMSO-EDTA-salt (DESS), FTA(®) cards, and FTA Elute(®) cards. Automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis and clone libraries were used to detect specific changes in the faux communities over weeks and months of storage. A previously known bias in FTA(®) cards that results in lower recovery of pure cultures of Gram-positive bacteria was also detected in mixed community samples. There appears to be a uniform bias across all five preservation methods against microorganisms with high G + C DNA. Overall, the liquid-based preservatives (DNAgard(™), RNAlater(®), and DESS) outperformed the card-based methods. No single liquid method clearly outperformed the others, leaving method choice to be based on experimental design, field facilities, shipping constraints, and allowable cost.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
France 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 316 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 24%
Researcher 80 24%
Student > Master 35 10%
Student > Bachelor 28 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 5%
Other 53 16%
Unknown 42 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 134 40%
Environmental Science 51 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 43 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 3%
Other 31 9%
Unknown 56 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#1,970,995
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from FEMS Microbiology Ecology
#130
of 2,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,231
of 192,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from FEMS Microbiology Ecology
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 192,239 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.