↓ Skip to main content

Replicates, Read Numbers, and Other Important Experimental Design Considerations for Microbial RNA-seq Identified Using Bacillus thuringiensis Datasets

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Replicates, Read Numbers, and Other Important Experimental Design Considerations for Microbial RNA-seq Identified Using Bacillus thuringiensis Datasets
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00794
Pubmed ID
Authors

Punita Manga, Dawn M. Klingeman, Tse-Yuan S. Lu, Tonia L. Mehlhorn, Dale A. Pelletier, Loren J. Hauser, Charlotte M. Wilson, Steven D. Brown

Abstract

RNA-seq is being used increasingly for gene expression studies and it is revolutionizing the fields of genomics and transcriptomics. However, the field of RNA-seq analysis is still evolving. Therefore, we specifically designed this study to contain large numbers of reads and four biological replicates per condition so we could alter these parameters and assess their impact on differential expression results. Bacillus thuringiensis strains ATCC10792 and CT43 were grown in two Luria broth medium lots on four dates and transcriptomics data were generated using one lane of sequence output from an Illumina HiSeq2000 instrument for each of the 32 samples, which were then analyzed using DESeq2. Genome coverages across samples ranged from 87 to 465X with medium lots and culture dates identified as major variation sources. Significantly differentially expressed genes (5% FDR, two-fold change) were detected for cultures grown using different medium lots and between different dates. The highly differentially expressed iron acquisition and metabolism genes, were a likely consequence of differing amounts of iron in the two media lots. Indeed, in this study RNA-seq was a tool for predictive biology since we hypothesized and confirmed the two LB medium lots had different iron contents (~two-fold difference). This study shows that the noise in data can be controlled and minimized with appropriate experimental design and by having the appropriate number of replicates and reads for the system being studied. We outline parameters for an efficient and cost effective microbial transcriptomics study.

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 9 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Other 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 14 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,817,626
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,489
of 24,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,401
of 338,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#96
of 568 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,898 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 338,929 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 568 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.