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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Direct Quantification of Cell-Free, Circulating DNA from Unpurified Plasma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0087838 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Breitbach, Suzan Tug, Susanne Helmig, Daniela Zahn, Thomas Kubiak, Matthias Michal, Tommaso Gori, Tobias Ehlert, Thomas Beiter, Perikles Simon |
| Abstract |
Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in body tissues or fluids is extensively investigated in clinical medicine and other research fields. In this article we provide a direct quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) as a sensitive tool for the measurement of cfDNA from plasma without previous DNA extraction, which is known to be accompanied by a reduction of DNA yield. The primer sets were designed to amplify a 90 and 222 bp multi-locus L1PA2 sequence. In the first module, cfDNA concentrations in unpurified plasma were compared to cfDNA concentrations in the eluate and the flow-through of the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit and in the eluate of a phenol-chloroform isoamyl (PCI) based DNA extraction, to elucidate the DNA losses during extraction. The analyses revealed 2.79-fold higher cfDNA concentrations in unpurified plasma compared to the eluate of the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit, while 36.7% of the total cfDNA were found in the flow-through. The PCI procedure only performed well on samples with high cfDNA concentrations, showing 87.4% of the concentrations measured in plasma. The DNA integrity strongly depended on the sample treatment. Further qualitative analyses indicated differing fractions of cfDNA fragment lengths in the eluate of both extraction methods. In the second module, cfDNA concentrations in the plasma of 74 coronary heart disease patients were compared to cfDNA concentrations of 74 healthy controls, using the direct L1PA2 qPCR for cfDNA quantification. The patient collective showed significantly higher cfDNA levels (mean (SD) 20.1 (23.8) ng/ml; range 5.1-183.0 ng/ml) compared to the healthy controls (9.7 (4.2) ng/ml; range 1.6-23.7 ng/ml). With our direct qPCR, we recommend a simple, economic and sensitive procedure for the quantification of cfDNA concentrations from plasma that might find broad applicability, if cfDNA became an established marker in the assessment of pathophysiological conditions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 330 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 322 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 74 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 14% |
| Other | 26 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 8% |
| Other | 42 | 13% |
| Unknown | 64 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 86 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 72 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 14% |
| Engineering | 14 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 10% |
| Unknown | 71 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,698,044
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#34,451
of 194,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,480
of 221,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,075
of 6,066 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 221,948 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,066 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.