↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Experimental Hookworm Infection on the Human Gut Microbiota

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Infectious Diseases, May 2014
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 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
Impact of Experimental Hookworm Infection on the Human Gut Microbiota
Published in
Journal of Infectious Diseases, May 2014
DOI 10.1093/infdis/jiu256
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cinzia Cantacessi, Paul Giacomin, John Croese, Martha Zakrzewski, Javier Sotillo, Leisa McCann, Matthew J. Nolan, Makedonka Mitreva, Lutz Krause, Alex Loukas

Abstract

The interactions between gastrointestinal parasitic helminths and commensal bacteria are likely to play a pivotal role in the establishment of host-parasite cross-talk, ultimately shaping the development of the intestinal immune system. However, little information is available on the impact of infections by gastrointestinal helminths on the bacterial communities inhabiting the human gut. We used 16S rRNA gene amplification and pyrosequencing to characterize, for the first time to our knowledge, the differences in composition and relative abundance of fecal microbial communities in human subjects prior to and following experimental infection with the blood-feeding intestinal hookworm, Necator americanus. Our data show that, although hookworm infection leads to a minor increase in microbial species richness, no detectable effect is observed on community structure, diversity or relative abundance of individual bacterial species.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Kazakhstan 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 185 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Student > Master 25 13%
Other 6 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 37 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 20 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 45 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,845,197
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#2,175
of 14,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,744
of 242,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#19
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 242,452 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.