↓ Skip to main content

A Comparative Analysis of Microbial DNA Preparation Methods for Use With Massive and Branching Coral Growth Forms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
A Comparative Analysis of Microbial DNA Preparation Methods for Use With Massive and Branching Coral Growth Forms
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandra Hernandez-Agreda, William Leggat, Tracy D. Ainsworth

Abstract

In the last two decades, over 100 studies have investigated the structure of the coral microbiome. However, as yet there are no standardized methods applied to sample preservation and preparation, with different studies using distinct methods. There have also been several comparisons made of microbiome data generated across different studies, which have not addressed the influence of the methodology employed over each of the microbiome datasets. Here, we assess three different preservation methods; salt saturated dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) - EDTA, snap freezing with liquid nitrogen and 4% paraformaldehyde solution, and two different preparation methodologies; bead beating and crushing, that have been applied to study the coral microbiome. We compare the resultant bacterial assemblage data for two coral growth forms, the massive coral Goniastrea edwardsi and the branching coral Isopora palifera. We show that microbiome datasets generated from differing preservation and processing protocols are comparable in composition (presence/absence). Significant discrepancies between preservation and homogenization methods are observed in structure (relative abundance), and in the occurrence and dominance of taxa, with rare (low abundance and low occurrence) phylotypes being the most variable fraction of the microbial community. Finally, we provide evidence to support chemical preservation with DMSO as effective as snap freezing samples for generating reliable and robust microbiome datasets. In conclusion, we recommend where possible a standardized preservation and extraction method be taken up by the field to provide the best possible practices for detailed assessments of symbiotic and conserved bacterial associations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 27%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 33%
Environmental Science 16 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 15%
Unspecified 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 9 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 01 October 2018.
All research outputs
#997,285
of 24,662,675 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#546
of 28,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,662
of 340,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#26
of 688 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,662,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 340,831 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 688 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.