↓ Skip to main content

Design and Sampling Plan Optimization for RT-qPCR Experiments in Plants: A Case Study in Blueberry

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Design and Sampling Plan Optimization for RT-qPCR Experiments in Plants: A Case Study in Blueberry
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.00271
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jose V. Die, Belen Roman, Fernando Flores, Lisa J. Rowland

Abstract

The qPCR assay has become a routine technology in plant biotechnology and agricultural research. It is unlikely to be technically improved, but there are still challenges which center around minimizing the variability in results and transparency when reporting technical data in support of the conclusions of a study. There are a number of aspects of the pre- and post-assay workflow that contribute to variability of results. Here, through the study of the introduction of error in qPCR measurements at different stages of the workflow, we describe the most important causes of technical variability in a case study using blueberry. In this study, we found that the stage for which increasing the number of replicates would be the most beneficial depends on the tissue used. For example, we would recommend the use of more RT replicates when working with leaf tissue, while the use of more sampling (RNA extraction) replicates would be recommended when working with stems or fruits to obtain the most optimal results. The use of more qPCR replicates provides the least benefit as it is the most reproducible step. By knowing the distribution of error over an entire experiment and the costs at each step, we have developed a script to identify the optimal sampling plan within the limits of a given budget. These findings should help plant scientists improve the design of qPCR experiments and refine their laboratory practices in order to conduct qPCR assays in a more reliable-manner to produce more consistent and reproducible data.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Chemistry 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#6,561
of 24,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,078
of 313,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#126
of 506 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,598 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. 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 313,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 506 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.