↓ Skip to main content

Protocol: a simple method for extracting next-generation sequencing quality genomic DNA from recalcitrant plant species

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
311 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
904 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Protocol: a simple method for extracting next-generation sequencing quality genomic DNA from recalcitrant plant species
Published in
Plant Methods, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1746-4811-10-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Healey, Agnelo Furtado, Tal Cooper, Robert J Henry

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing technologies rely on high quality DNA that is suitable for library preparation followed by sequencing. Some plant species store large amounts of phenolics and polysaccharides within their leaf tissue making genomic DNA extraction difficult. While many DNA extraction methods exist that contend with the presence of phenolics and polysaccharides, these methods rely on long incubations, multiple precipitations or commercially available kits to produce high molecular weight and contaminant-free DNA. In this protocol, we describe simple modifications to the established CTAB- based extraction method that allows for reliable isolation of high molecular weight genomic DNA from difficult to isolate plant species Corymbia (a eucalypt) and Coffea (coffee). The simplified protocol does not require multiple clean up steps or commercial based kits, and the isolated DNA passed stringent quality control standards for whole genome sequencing on Illumina HiSeq and TruSeq sequencing platforms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 904 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 9 <1%
Unknown 878 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 157 17%
Student > Bachelor 143 16%
Researcher 131 14%
Student > Master 128 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 4%
Other 92 10%
Unknown 216 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 369 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 180 20%
Environmental Science 24 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 22 2%
Chemistry 13 1%
Other 61 7%
Unknown 235 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#6,238,302
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#349
of 1,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,198
of 242,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 242,574 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.