↓ Skip to main content

A simple, portable, electrochemical biosensor to screen shellfish for Vibrio parahaemolyticus

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
A simple, portable, electrochemical biosensor to screen shellfish for Vibrio parahaemolyticus
Published in
AMB Express, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13568-017-0339-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noordiana Nordin, Nor Azah Yusof, Jaafar Abdullah, Son Radu, Roozbeh Hushiarian, Noordiana Nordin, Nor Azah Yusof, Jaafar Abdullah, Son Radu, Roozbeh Hushiarian

Abstract

An earlier electrochemical mechanism of DNA detection was adapted and specified for the detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in real samples. The reader, based on a screen printed carbon electrode, was modified with polylactide-stabilized gold nanoparticles and methylene blue was employed as the redox indicator. Detection was assessed using a microprocessor to measure current response under controlled potential. The fabricated sensor was able to specifically distinguish complementary, non-complementary and mismatched oligonucleotides. DNA was measured in the range of 2.0 × 10(-8)-2.0 × 10(-13) M with a detection limit of 2.16 pM. The relative standard deviation for 6 replications of differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) measurement of 0.2 µM complementary DNA was 4.33%. Additionally, cross-reactivity studies against various other food-borne pathogens showed a reliably sensitive detection of the target pathogen. Successful identification of Vibrio parahaemolyticus (spiked and unspiked) in fresh cockles, combined with its simplicity and portability demonstrate the potential of the device as a practical screening tool.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 4 14%
Chemistry 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 7 25%

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 16 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,930,798
of 9,076,202 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#253
of 581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,377
of 253,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#22
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,076,202 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 581 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 253,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.