| Title |
Towards understanding Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn wound infections by profiling gene expression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biotechnology Techniques, December 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10529-007-9620-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Piotr Bielecki, Justyna Glik, Marek Kawecki, Vítor A. P. Martins dos Santos |
| Abstract |
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a key opportunistic pathogen causing severe acute and chronic nosocomial infections in immunocompromised or catheterized patients. It is prevalent in burn wound infections and it is generally multi-drug resistant. Understanding the genetic programs underlying infection is essential to develop highly needed new strategies for prevention and therapy. This work reviews expression profiling efforts conducted worldwide towards gaining insights into pathogenesis by P. aeruginosa, in particular in burn wounds. Work on various infection models, including the burned mouse model, has identified several direct virulence factors and elucidated their mode of action. In vivo gene expression experiments using In vivo Expression Technology (IVET) ascertained distinct regulatory circuits and traits that have helped explain P. aeruginosa s success as a general pathogen. The sequencing of the whole genome from a number of P. aeruginosa strains and the construction of genome-wide microarrays have paved the road to the several insightful studies on the (interacting) traits underlying infection. A series of in vitro and initial in vivo gene expression studies revealed specific traits pivotal for infection, such as quorum sensing systems, iron acquisition and oxidative stress responses, and toxin production among others. The data sets obtained from global transcriptional profiling provide insights that will be essential for the development of new targets and options for prevention and intervention. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 29 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 35% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 15 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 30 | 25% |
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 17 July 2010.
All research outputs
#6,492,348
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Techniques
#719
of 2,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,556
of 168,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Techniques
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,762 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 73% 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 168,029 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.