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 |
Comparative evaluation of different molecular methods for DNA extraction from individual Teladorsagia circumcincta nematodes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Biotechnology, May 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12896-021-00695-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Sloan, C. J. Jenvey, D. Piedrafita, S. Preston, M. J. Stear |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to develop a reliable DNA extraction protocol to use on individual Teladorsagia circumcincta nematode specimens to produce high quality DNA for genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis. Pooled samples have been critical in providing the groundwork for T. circumcincta genome construction, but there is currently no standard method for extracting high-quality DNA from individual nematodes. 11 extraction kits were compared based on DNA quality, yield, and processing time. 11 extraction protocols were compared, and the concentration and purity of the extracted DNA was quantified. Median DNA concentration among all methods measured on NanoDrop 2000™ ranged between 0.45-11.5 ng/μL, and on Qubit™ ranged between undetectable - 0.962 ng/μL. Median A260/280 ranged between 0.505-3.925, and median A260/230 ranged - 0.005 - 1.545. Larval exsheathment to remove the nematode cuticle negatively impacted DNA concentration and purity. A Schistosoma sp. DNA extraction method was determined as most suitable for individual T. circumcincta nematode specimens due to its resulting DNA concentration, purity, and relatively fast processing time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
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 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
#18,815,535
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biotechnology
#772
of 946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#321,802
of 443,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biotechnology
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 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 946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 443,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.