↓ Skip to main content

Proton motive force generation from stored polymers for the uptake of acetate under anaerobic conditions

Overview of attention for article published in FEMS Microbiology Letters, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Proton motive force generation from stored polymers for the uptake of acetate under anaerobic conditions
Published in
FEMS Microbiology Letters, July 2007
DOI 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00839.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron M. Saunders, Amanda N. Mabbett, Alastair G. McEwan, Linda L. Blackall

Abstract

The bacteria facilitating enhanced biological phosphorus removal gain a selective advantage from intracellularly stored polymer-driven substrate uptake under anaerobic conditions during sequential anaerobic : aerobic cycling. Mechanisms for these unusual membrane transport processes were proposed and experimentally validated using selective inhibitors and highly-enriched cultures of a polyphosphate-accumulating organism, Accumulibacter, and a glycogen-accumulating organism, Competibacter. Acetate uptake by both Accumulibacter and Competibacter was driven by a proton motive force (PMF). Stored polymers were used to generate the PMF -Accumulibacter used phosphate efflux through the Pit transporter, while Competibacter generated a PMF by proton efflux through the ATPase and fumarate reductase in the reductive TCA cycle.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 2 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 25%
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Master 14 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 23%
Environmental Science 16 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Chemical Engineering 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 17 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 July 2022.
All research outputs
#4,835,465
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#637
of 5,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,596
of 78,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,773 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 78,444 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 91% of its contemporaries.