↓ Skip to main content

An Environmental DNA Primer for Microbial and Restoration Ecology

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Ecology, February 2023
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
An Environmental DNA Primer for Microbial and Restoration Ecology
Published in
Microbial Ecology, February 2023
DOI 10.1007/s00248-022-02168-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Tessler, Seth W. Cunningham, Melissa R. Ingala, Sally D. Warring, Mercer R. Brugler

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) sequencing-DNA collected from the environment from living cells or shed DNA-was first developed for working with microbes and has greatly benefitted microbial ecologists for decades since. These tools have only become increasingly powerful with the advent of metabarcoding and metagenomics. Most new studies that examine diverse assemblages of bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, and viruses lean heavily into eDNA using these newer technologies, as the necessary sequencing technology and bioinformatic tools have become increasingly affordable and user friendly. However, eDNA methods are rapidly evolving, and sometimes it can feel overwhelming to simply keep up with the basics. In this review, we provide a starting point for microbial ecologists who are new to DNA-based methods by detailing the eDNA methods that are most pertinent, including study design, sample collection and storage, selecting the right sequencing technology, lab protocols, equipment, and a few bioinformatic tools. Furthermore, we focus on how eDNA work can benefit restoration and what modifications are needed when working in this subfield.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 33%
Environmental Science 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Unknown 9 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 04 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,076,812
of 25,099,766 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Ecology
#87
of 2,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,682
of 468,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Ecology
#2
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,099,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 468,736 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 39 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 97% of its contemporaries.