↓ Skip to main content

How to Open the Treasure Chest? Optimising DNA Extraction from Herbarium Specimens

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
202 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
411 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
How to Open the Treasure Chest? Optimising DNA Extraction from Herbarium Specimens
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0043808
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiina Särkinen, Martijn Staats, James E. Richardson, Robyn S. Cowan, Freek T. Bakker

Abstract

Herbarium collections are potentially an enormous resource for DNA studies, but the use of herbarium specimens in molecular studies has thus far been slowed down by difficulty in obtaining amplifiable DNA. Here we compare a set of commercially available DNA extraction protocols and their performance in terms of DNA purity and yield, and PCR amplification success as measured by using three differentially sized markers, the rbcL barcoding marker (cpDNA), the LEAFY exon 3 (nrDNA), and the trnL((UAA)) P6 loop (cpDNA). Results reveal large differences between extraction methods, where DNA purity rather than yield is shown to be strongly correlated with PCR success. Amplicon size shows similarly strong correlation with PCR success, with the shortest fragment showing the highest success rate (78%, P6 loop, 10-143 base pairs (bp)) and the largest fragment the lowest success (10%, rbcL, 670 bp). The effect of specimen preparation method on PCR success was also tested. Results show that drying method strongly affects PCR success, especially the availability of fragments longer than 250 bp, where longer fragments are more available for PCR amplification in air dried material compared to alcohol dried specimens. Results from our study indicate that projects relying on poor-quality starting material such as herbarium or scat samples should focus on extracting pure DNA and aim to amplify short target regions (<200-300 bp) in order to maximise outcomes. Development of shorter barcoding regions, or mini-barcodes within existing ones should be of high importance as only a few options are currently available; this is particularly important if we hope to incorporate the millions of herbarium samples available into barcoding initiatives and other molecular studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 411 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 7 2%
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 385 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 79 19%
Researcher 74 18%
Student > Master 64 16%
Student > Bachelor 46 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Other 66 16%
Unknown 57 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 243 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 56 14%
Environmental Science 17 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 <1%
Other 27 7%
Unknown 59 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,087,187
of 25,936,091 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#37,528
of 226,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,594
of 188,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#621
of 4,347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,936,091 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 226,383 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 188,815 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,347 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.