↓ Skip to main content

Making a Virus Visible: Francis O. Holmes and a Biological Assay for Tobacco mosaic virus

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 509)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Making a Virus Visible: Francis O. Holmes and a Biological Assay for Tobacco mosaic virus
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10739-013-9353-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen-Beth G. Scholthof

Abstract

In the early twentieth century, viruses had yet to be defined in a material way. Instead, they were known better by what they were not - not bacteria, not culturable, and not visible with a light microscope. As with the ill-defined "gene" of genetics, viruses were microbes whose nature had not been revealed. Some clarity arrived in 1929 when Francis O. Holmes, a scientist at the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research (Yonkers, NY) reported that Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) could produce local necrotic lesions on tobacco plants and that these lesions were in proportion to dilutions of the inoculum. Holmes' method, the local lesion assay, provided the first evidence that viruses were discrete infectious particles, thus setting the stage for physicochemical studies of plant viruses. In a field where there are few eponymous methods or diseases, Holmes' assay continues to be a useful tool for the study of plant viruses. TMV was a success because the local lesion assay "made the virus visible" and standardized the work of virology towards determining the nature of the virus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Professor 4 19%
Student > Master 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 52%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,963,929
of 24,333,504 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#48
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,079
of 199,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,333,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 199,692 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them