↓ Skip to main content

Modified Lipid Extraction Methods for Deep Subsurface Shale

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2017
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Modified Lipid Extraction Methods for Deep Subsurface Shale
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01408
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rawlings N. Akondi, Ryan V. Trexler, Susan M. Pfiffner, Paula J. Mouser, Shikha Sharma

Abstract

Growing interest in the utilization of black shales for hydrocarbon development and environmental applications has spurred investigations of microbial functional diversity in the deep subsurface shale ecosystem. Lipid biomarker analyses including phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs) and diglyceride fatty acids (DGFAs) represent sensitive tools for estimating biomass and characterizing the diversity of microbial communities. However, complex shale matrix properties create immense challenges for microbial lipid extraction procedures. Here, we test three different lipid extraction methods: modified Bligh and Dyer (mBD), Folch (FOL), and microwave assisted extraction (MAE), to examine their ability in the recovery and reproducibility of lipid biomarkers in deeply buried shales. The lipid biomarkers were analyzed as fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) with the GC-MS, and the average PL-FAME yield ranged from 67 to 400 pmol/g, while the average DG-FAME yield ranged from 600 to 3,000 pmol/g. The biomarker yields in the intact phospholipid Bligh and Dyer treatment (mBD + Phos + POPC), the Folch, the Bligh and Dyer citrate buffer (mBD-Cit), and the MAE treatments were all relatively higher and statistically similar compared to the other extraction treatments for both PLFAs and DGFAs. The biomarker yields were however highly variable within replicates for most extraction treatments, although the mBD + Phos + POPC treatment had relatively better reproducibility in the consistent fatty acid profiles. This variability across treatments which is associated with the highly complex nature of deeply buried shale matrix, further necessitates customized methodological developments for the improvement of lipid biomarker recovery.

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 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,321,499
of 24,166,768 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#4,172
of 27,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,413
of 320,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#159
of 536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,166,768 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 320,402 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 536 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 68% of its contemporaries.