↓ Skip to main content

Dielectrophoresis-Based Discrimination of Bacteria at the Strain Level Based on Their Surface Properties

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Dielectrophoresis-Based Discrimination of Bacteria at the Strain Level Based on Their Surface Properties
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0076751
Pubmed ID
Authors

William A. Braff, Dana Willner, Philip Hugenholtz, Korneel Rabaey, Cullen R. Buie

Abstract

Insulator-based dielectrophoresis can be used to manipulate biological particles, but has thus far found limited practical applications due to low sensitivity. We present linear sweep three-dimensional insulator-based dielectrophoresis as a considerably more sensitive approach for strain-level discrimination bacteria. In this work, linear sweep three-dimensional insulator-based dielectrophoresis was performed on Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA14 along with six isogenic mutants as well as Streptococcus mitis SF100 and PS344. Strain-level discrimination was achieved between these clinically important pathogens with applied electric fields below 10 V/mm. This low voltage, high sensitivity technique has potential applications in clinical diagnostics as well as microbial physiology research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 25%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Professor 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 32 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 19 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. 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 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#484,276
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#6,718
of 219,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,802
of 218,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#167
of 5,143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 218,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.