↓ Skip to main content

Rapid Identification of Officinal Akebiae Caulis and Its Toxic Adulterant Aristolochiae Manshuriensis Caulis (Aristolochia manshuriensis) by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Rapid Identification of Officinal Akebiae Caulis and Its Toxic Adulterant Aristolochiae Manshuriensis Caulis (Aristolochia manshuriensis) by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.00887
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lan Wu, Bo Wang, Mingming Zhao, Wei Liu, Peng Zhang, Yuhua Shi, Chao Xiong, Ping Wang, Wei Sun, Shilin Chen

Abstract

Mu-tong (Akebiae Caulis) is a traditional Chinese medicine commonly used as a diuretic and antiphlogistic. A common adulterant of Mu-tong is Guan-mu-tong (Aristolochiae Manshuriensis Caulis), which is derived from the stem of Aristolochia manshuriensis Komarov, and contains carcinogenic aristolochic acids. We used an alternative technique, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), to differentiate Mu-tong from Guan-mu-tong because LAMP is quick, highly sensitive, and specific. We designed a set of four common primers (G-F3, G-B3, G-FIP, and G-BIP) and a loop primer (G-LB) for LAMP based on the internal transcribed spacer 2 sequence of Ar. manshuriensis. We successfully amplified the LAMP assays and visual detection occurred within 60 min at isothermal conditions of 65°C. The LAMP reaction exhibited a tenfold increase in detection (4.22 pg/μl DNA) over conventional polymerase chain reaction demonstrating that LAMP is a useful technique to detect Guan-mu-tong. We conclude that the LAMP technique is a potentially valuable safety control method for simple and efficient discrimination of Mu-tong from its adulterant Guan-mu-tong.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,333,181
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#16,165
of 20,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,192
of 353,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#410
of 536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,269 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 353,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 536 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.