↓ Skip to main content

Complete genome sequences of two novel autographiviruses infecting a bacterium from the Pseudomonas fluorescens group

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Virology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Complete genome sequences of two novel autographiviruses infecting a bacterium from the Pseudomonas fluorescens group
Published in
Archives of Virology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00705-017-3419-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grzegorz Nowicki, Karolina Walkowiak-Nowicka, Agata Zemleduch-Barylska, Anna Mleczko, Patryk Frąckowiak, Natalia Nowaczyk, Emilia Kozdrowska, Jakub Barylski

Abstract

In this paper, we describe two independent isolates of a new member of the subfamily Autographivirinae, Pseudomonas phage KNP. The type strain (KNP) has a linear, 40,491-bp-long genome with GC content of 57.3%, and 50 coding DNA sequences (CDSs). The genome of the second strain (WRT) contains one CDS less, encodes a significantly different tail fiber protein and is shorter (40,214 bp; GC content, 57.4%). Phylogenetic analysis indicates that both KNP and WRT belong to the genus T7virus. Together with genetically similar Pseudomonas phages (gh-1, phiPSA2, phiPsa17, PPPL-1, shl2, phi15, PPpW-4, UNO-SLW4, phiIBB-PF7A, Pf-10, and Phi-S1), they form a divergent yet coherent group that stands apart from the T7-like viruses (sensu lato). Analysis of the diversity of this group and its relatedness to other members of the subfamily Autographivirinae led us to the conclusion that this group might be considered as a candidate for a new genus.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 31%
Psychology 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,066,800
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Virology
#2,367
of 4,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,968
of 313,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Virology
#18
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,207 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 313,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.