↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the impact of six different DNA extraction methods for the representation of the microbial community associated with human chronic wound infections using a gel-based DNA profiling method

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 1,331)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of the impact of six different DNA extraction methods for the representation of the microbial community associated with human chronic wound infections using a gel-based DNA profiling method
Published in
AMB Express, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13568-017-0477-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayomi Dilhari, Asanga Sampath, Chinthika Gunasekara, Neluka Fernando, Deepaka Weerasekara, Chris Sissons, Andrew McBain, Manjula Weerasekera

Abstract

Infected chronic wounds are polymicrobial in nature which include a diverse group of aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms. Majority of these communal microorganisms are difficult to grow in vitro. DNA fingerprinting methods such as polymerase chain reaction-denaturation gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) facilitate the microbial profiling of complex ecosystems including infected chronic wounds. Six different DNA extraction methods were compared for profiling of the microbial community associated with chronic wound infections using PCR-DGGE. Tissue debris obtained from chronic wound ulcers of ten patients were used for DNA extraction. Total nucleic acid was extracted from each specimen using six DNA extraction methods. The yield, purity and quality of DNA was measured and used for PCR amplification targeting V2-V3 region of eubacterial 16S rRNA gene. QIAGEN DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (K method) produced good quality genomic DNA compared to the other five DNA extraction methods and gave a broad diversity of bacterial communities in chronic wounds. Among the five conventional methods, bead beater/phenol-chloroform based DNA extraction method with STES buffer (BP1 method) gave a yield of DNA with a high purity and resulted in a higher DGGE band diversity. Although DNA extraction using heat and NaOH had the lowest purity, DGGE revealed a higher bacterial diversity. The findings suggest that the quality and the yield of genomic DNA are influenced by the DNA extraction protocol, thus a method should be carefully selected in profiling a complex microbial community.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 207 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 18%
Student > Master 23 11%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 91 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 99 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 24 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,646,065
of 25,654,566 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#30
of 1,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,780
of 326,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,331 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 326,088 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 97% of its contemporaries.