↓ Skip to main content

16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing of reference and clinical samples and investigation of the temperature stability of microbiome profiles

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
194 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
16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing of reference and clinical samples and investigation of the temperature stability of microbiome profiles
Published in
Microbiome, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/2049-2618-2-31
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Hang, Valmik Desai, Nela Zavaljevski, Yu Yang, Xiaoxu Lin, Ravi Vijaya Satya, Luis J Martinez, Jason M Blaylock, Richard G Jarman, Stephen J Thomas, Robert A Kuschner

Abstract

Sample storage conditions, extraction methods, PCR primers, and parameters are major factors that affect metagenomics analysis based on microbial 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Most published studies were limited to the comparison of only one or two types of these factors. Systematic multi-factor explorations are needed to evaluate the conditions that may impact validity of a microbiome analysis. This study was aimed to improve methodological options to facilitate the best technical approaches in the design of a microbiome study. Three readily available mock bacterial community materials and two commercial extraction techniques, Qiagen DNeasy and MO BIO PowerSoil DNA purification methods, were used to assess procedures for 16S ribosomal DNA amplification and pyrosequencing-based analysis. Primers were chosen for 16S rDNA quantitative PCR and amplification of region V3 to V1. Swabs spiked with mock bacterial community cells and clinical oropharyngeal swabs were incubated at respective temperatures of -80°C, -20°C, 4°C, and 37°C for 4 weeks, then extracted with the two methods, and subjected to pyrosequencing and taxonomic and statistical analyses to investigate microbiome profile stability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Japan 2 1%
Argentina 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 176 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 22%
Student > Master 35 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 20 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 90 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 6%
Environmental Science 5 3%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 28 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#6,371,096
of 25,364,603 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,446
of 1,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,167
of 246,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 246,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.