| Title |
Common Cutaneous Bacteria Isolated from Snakes Inhibit Growth of Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EcoHealth, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10393-017-1289-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aubree J. Hill, Jacob E. Leys, Danny Bryan, Fantasia M. Erdman, Katherine S. Malone, Gabrielle N. Russell, Roger D. Applegate, Heather Fenton, Kevin Niedringhaus, Andrew N. Miller, Matthew C. Allender, Donald M. Walker |
| Abstract |
There is increasing concern regarding potential impacts of snake fungal disease (SFD), caused by Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola (Oo), on free-ranging snake populations in the eastern USA. The snake cutaneous microbiome likely serves as the first line of defense against Oo and other pathogens; however, little is known about microbial associations in snakes. The objective of this study was to better define the composition and immune function of the snake cutaneous microbiome. Eight timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) and four black racers (Coluber constrictor) were captured in Arkansas and Tennessee, with some snakes exhibiting signs of SFD. Oo was detected through real-time qPCR in five snakes. Additional histopathological techniques confirmed a diagnosis of SFD in one racer, the species' first confirmed case of SFD in Tennessee. Fifty-eight bacterial and five fungal strains were isolated from skin swabs and identified with Sanger sequencing. Non-metric multidimensional scaling and PERMANOVA analyses indicated that the culturable microbiome does not differ between snake species. Fifteen bacterial strains isolated from rattlesnakes and a single strain isolated from a racer inhibited growth of Oo in vitro. Results shed light on the culturable cutaneous microbiome of snakes and probiotic members that may play a role in fighting an emergent disease. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 29% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 19 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,328,396
of 23,555,482 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#136
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,429
of 327,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,555,482 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 327,369 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.