↓ Skip to main content

Urea and urine are a viable and cost-effective nitrogen source for Yarrowia lipolytica biomass and lipid accumulation

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, January 2018
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 (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Urea and urine are a viable and cost-effective nitrogen source for Yarrowia lipolytica biomass and lipid accumulation
Published in
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00253-018-8769-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Brabender, Murtaza Shabbir Hussain, Gabriel Rodriguez, Mark A. Blenner

Abstract

Yarrowia lipolytica is an industrial yeast that has been used in the sustainable production of fatty acid-derived and lipid compounds due to its high growth capacity, genetic tractability, and oleaginous properties. This investigation examines the possibility of utilizing urea or urine as an alternative to ammonium sulfate as a nitrogen source to culture Y. lipolytica. The use of a stoichiometrically equivalent concentration of urea in lieu of ammonium sulfate significantly increased cell growth when glucose was used as the carbon source. Furthermore, Y. lipolytica growth was equally improved when grown with synthetic urine and real human urine. Equivalent or better lipid production was achieved when cells are grown on urea or urine. The successful use of urea and urine as nitrogen sources for Y. lipolytica growth highlights the potential of using cheaper media components as well as exploiting and recycling non-treated human waste streams for biotechnology processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 16%
Chemical Engineering 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 22 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,094,082
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#155
of 8,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,799
of 447,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#5
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 447,589 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 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.