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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Improved Methods of Carnivore Faecal Sample Preservation, DNA Extraction and Quantification for Accurate Genotyping of Wild Tigers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0046732 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patlolla Anuradha Reddy, Maradani Bhavanishankar, Jyotsna Bhagavatula, Katakam Harika, Ranjeet Singh Mahla, Sisinthy Shivaji |
| Abstract |
Non-invasively collected samples allow a variety of genetic studies on endangered and elusive species. However due to low amplification success and high genotyping error rates fewer samples can be identified up to the individual level. Number of PCRs needed to obtain reliable genotypes also noticeably increase. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| India | 3 | 2% |
| Japan | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 174 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 50 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 103 | 54% |
| Environmental Science | 33 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 7% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Unknown | 25 | 13% |
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 24 October 2012.
All research outputs
#18,319,742
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,899
of 193,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,916
of 172,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,441
of 4,537 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 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 193,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 172,607 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 4,537 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.