| Title |
A New Deep-Sea Suctorian-Nematode Epibiosis (Loricophrya-Tricoma) from the Blanes Submarine Canyon (NW Mediterranean)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Microbial Ecology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00248-016-0923-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregorio Fernandez-Leborans, Sara Román, Daniel Martin |
| Abstract |
During a pluri-disciplinary study carried out within the frame of the Spanish research project DOS MARES, multicore samples were collected along the Blanes submarine canyon and its adjacent open slope to study the structure and dynamics of the meiofaunal organisms, mainly nematodes. Among the 5808 nematode individuals identified, only 190 of them belonged to the genus Tricoma (Desmoscolecidae), and only two harboured epibiont suctorian ciliates. The three specimens were located near the tail of the basibionts. A careful examination of the ciliates revealed that they were suctorians, which are here described as a new species of Loricophrya, namely L. mediterranea sp. nov. The new species is characterized by having a conical, slightly elongated lorica, narrowing towards posterior end; an anterior end inward curved, surrounding the lorica opening; a body placed near the lorica opening, occupying 1/3 of the lorica length, 4-8 capitate tentacles, and a peripheral, oval to sausage-shaped macronucleus. Our findings represent the first known report of an association with a deep-sea species of Tricoma, and the first record in the Mediterranean Sea, for a species of Loricophrya. The significance of the relationships between suctorian ciliates and their host in extreme environments such as deep-sea submarine canyons is discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Sweden | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 40% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 50% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 30% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
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 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,950,678
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Ecology
#1,145
of 2,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,908
of 421,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Ecology
#28
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 421,590 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 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.