↓ Skip to main content

Tracking Pathogen Transmission at the Human–Wildlife Interface: Banded Mongoose and Escherichia coli

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Tracking Pathogen Transmission at the Human–Wildlife Interface: Banded Mongoose and Escherichia coli
Published in
EcoHealth, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10393-013-0838-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Pesapane, M. Ponder, K. A. Alexander

Abstract

A primary challenge to managing emerging infectious disease is identifying pathways that allow pathogen transmission at the human-wildlife interface. Using Escherichia coli as a model organism, we evaluated fecal bacterial transmission between banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) and humans in northern Botswana. Fecal samples were collected from banded mongoose living in protected areas (n = 87, 3 troops) and surrounding villages (n = 92, 3 troops). Human fecal waste was collected from the same environment (n = 46). Isolates were evaluated for susceptibility to 10 antibiotics. Resistant E. coli isolates from mongoose were compared to human isolates using rep-PCR fingerprinting and MLST-PCR. Antimicrobial resistant isolates were identified in 57 % of the mongoose fecal samples tested (range 31-78% among troops). At least one individual mongoose fecal sample demonstrated resistance to each tested antibiotic, and multidrug resistance was highest in the protected areas (40.9%). E. coli isolated from mongoose and human sources in this study demonstrated an extremely high degree of genetic similarity on rep-PCR (AMOVA, F ST = 0.0027, p = 0.18) with a similar pattern identified on MLST-PCR. Human waste may be an important source of microbial exposure to wildlife. Evidence of high levels of antimicrobial resistance even within protected areas identifies an emerging health threat and highlights the need for improved waste management in these systems.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Portugal 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 131 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 20%
Student > Master 22 16%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 39%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 15 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Environmental Science 11 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 19 14%
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 05 May 2013.
All research outputs
#13,151,646
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#471
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,876
of 194,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 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 706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 194,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.