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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Detection of Clostridium botulinum group III in environmental samples from farms by real-time PCR using four commercial DNA extraction kits
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3549-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline Le Maréchal, Sarah Fourour, Valentine Ballan, Sandra Rouxel, Rozenn Souillard, Marianne Chemaly |
| Abstract |
Few studies have tested DNA extraction methods to optimize the detection of Clostridium botulinum in environmental samples that can be collected during animal botulism outbreaks. In this study, we evaluated four commercial DNA extraction kits for the detection of C. botulinum group III in 82 various environmental samples (9 manure, 53 swabs, 3 insects, 8 water, 1 silage and 8 soil samples) collected in a context of animal botulism outbreaks. The PowerSoil® kit was the most efficient for almost all matrices (83.6% of the 73 tested samples), except manure for which the NucleoSpin® Soil kit was the most efficient. The NucleoSpin® Soil kit enabled detection in 75.3%, the QIAamp® DNA Mini Kit in 68.5%, and the QIAamp® Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit in 45.2%. However, the NucleoSpin® Soil kit detected C. botulinum in 9 of the 9 manure samples tested, while the PowerSoil® kit found C. botulinum in only two samples, and the other two kits in none of the samples. This study showed that PowerSoil® can be recommended for DNA extraction from environmental samples except for manure, for which the NucleoSpin® Soil kit appeared to be far more appropriate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 15% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,067
of 4,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,115
of 329,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#99
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 329,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.