↓ Skip to main content

Tissue sampling methods and standards for vertebrate genomics

Overview of attention for article published in Giga Science, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
271 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
Tissue sampling methods and standards for vertebrate genomics
Published in
Giga Science, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/2047-217x-1-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pamela BY Wong, Edward O Wiley, Warren E Johnson, Oliver A Ryder, Stephen J O’Brien, David Haussler, Klaus-Peter Koepfli, Marlys L Houck, Polina Perelman, Gabriela Mastromonaco, Andrew C Bentley, Byrappa Venkatesh, Ya-ping Zhang, Robert W Murphy

Abstract

The recent rise in speed and efficiency of new sequencing technologies have facilitated high-throughput sequencing, assembly and analyses of genomes, advancing ongoing efforts to analyze genetic sequences across major vertebrate groups. Standardized procedures in acquiring high quality DNA and RNA and establishing cell lines from target species will facilitate these initiatives. We provide a legal and methodological guide according to four standards of acquiring and storing tissue for the Genome 10K Project and similar initiatives as follows: four-star (banked tissue/cell cultures, RNA from multiple types of tissue for transcriptomes, and sufficient flash-frozen tissue for 1 mg of DNA, all from a single individual); three-star (RNA as above and frozen tissue for 1 mg of DNA); two-star (frozen tissue for at least 700 μg of DNA); and one-star (ethanol-preserved tissue for 700 μg of DNA or less of mixed quality). At a minimum, all tissues collected for the Genome 10K and other genomic projects should consider each species' natural history and follow institutional and legal requirements. Associated documentation should detail as much information as possible about provenance to ensure representative sampling and subsequent sequencing. Hopefully, the procedures outlined here will not only encourage success in the Genome 10K Project but also inspire the adaptation of standards by other genomic projects, including those involving other biota.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
Brazil 7 3%
Germany 2 <1%
Hong Kong 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 242 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 63 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 23%
Student > Master 46 17%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 7%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 19 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 175 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 11%
Environmental Science 11 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 25 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#832,084
of 14,259,883 outputs
Outputs from Giga Science
#210
of 673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,536
of 123,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Giga Science
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,259,883 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 123,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them