↓ Skip to main content

Biases underlying species detection using fluorescent amplified-fragment length polymorphisms yielded from roots

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Biases underlying species detection using fluorescent amplified-fragment length polymorphisms yielded from roots
Published in
Plant Methods, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13007-015-0079-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justine Karst, Pak Chow, Simon M Landhäusser

Abstract

Roots of different plant species are typically morphologically indistinguishable. Of the DNA-based techniques, fluorescent amplified-fragment length polymorphisms (FAFLPs) are considered reliable, high throughput, inexpensive methods to identify roots from mixed species samples. False-negatives, however, are not uncommon and their underlying causes are poorly understood. We investigated several sources of potential biases originating in DNA extraction and amplification. Specifically, we examined the effects of sample storage, tissue, and species on DNA yield and purity, and the effects of DNA concentration and fragment size on amplification of three non-coding chloroplast regions (trnT-trnL intergenic spacer, trnL intron, and trnL-trnF intergenic spacer). We found that sample condition, tissue and species all affected DNA yield. A single freeze-thaw reduces DNA yield, DNA yield is less for roots than shoots, and species vary in the amount of DNA yielded from extractions. The effects of template DNA concentration, species identity, and their interaction on amplicon yield differed across the three chloroplast regions tested. We found that the effect of species identity on amplicon production was generally more pronounced than that of DNA concentration. Though these factors influenced DNA yield, they likely do not have a pronounced effect on detection success of fragments and only underscore the restriction on the use of FAFLPs for measuring species presence rather than their abundance. However, for two of the regions tested-the trnT-trnL intergenic spacer and the trnL intron-size-based fragment competition occurred and the likelihood of detection was higher for smaller than larger fragments. This result reveals a methodological bias when using FAFLPs. To avoid potential bias with the use of FAFLPs, we recommend users check for the disproportionate absence of species detected belowground versus aboveground as a function of fragment size, and explore other regions, aside from the trnT-trnL intergenic spacer and trnL intron, for amplification.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Researcher 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 50%
Environmental Science 2 14%
Computer Science 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#777
of 1,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,840
of 263,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 263,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.