| Title |
Revisiting the taxonomy of the genus Elizabethkingia using whole-genome sequencing, optical mapping, and MALDI-TOF, along with proposal of three novel Elizabethkingia species: Elizabethkingia bruuniana sp. nov., Elizabethkingia ursingii sp. nov., and Elizabethkingia occulta sp. nov.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10482-017-0926-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ainsley C. Nicholson, Christopher A. Gulvik, Anne M. Whitney, Ben W. Humrighouse, James Graziano, Brian Emery, Melissa Bell, Vladimir Loparev, Phalasy Juieng, Jarrett Gartin, Chantal Bizet, Dominique Clermont, Alexis Criscuolo, Sylvain Brisse, John R. McQuiston |
| Abstract |
The genus Elizabethkingia is genetically heterogeneous, and the phenotypic similarities between recognized species pose challenges in correct identification of clinically derived isolates. In addition to the type species Elizabethkingia meningoseptica, and more recently proposed Elizabethkingia miricola, Elizabethkingia anophelis and Elizabethkingia endophytica, four genomospecies have long been recognized. By comparing historic DNA-DNA hybridization results with whole genome sequences, optical maps, and MALDI-TOF mass spectra on a large and diverse set of strains, we propose a comprehensive taxonomic revision of this genus. Genomospecies 1 and 2 contain the type strains E. anophelis and E. miricola, respectively. Genomospecies 3 and 4 are herein proposed as novel species named as Elizabethkingia bruuniana sp. nov. (type strain, G0146(T) = DSM 2975(T) = CCUG 69503(T) = CIP 111191(T)) and Elizabethkingia ursingii sp. nov. (type strain, G4122(T) = DSM 2974(T) = CCUG 69496(T) = CIP 111192(T)), respectively. Finally, the new species Elizabethkingia occulta sp. nov. (type strain G4070(T) = DSM 2976(T) = CCUG 69505(T) = CIP 111193(T)), is proposed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,863,517
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
#438
of 2,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,611
of 315,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,036 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 315,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.