↓ Skip to main content

Genome-Based Comparison of Clostridioides difficile: Average Amino Acid Identity Analysis of Core Genomes

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Ecology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Genome-Based Comparison of Clostridioides difficile: Average Amino Acid Identity Analysis of Core Genomes
Published in
Microbial Ecology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00248-018-1155-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Cabal, Se-Ran Jun, Piroon Jenjaroenpun, Visanu Wanchai, Intawat Nookaew, Thidathip Wongsurawat, Mary J. Burgess, Atul Kothari, Trudy M. Wassenaar, David W. Ussery

Abstract

Infections due to Clostridioides difficile (previously known as Clostridium difficile) are a major problem in hospitals, where cases can be caused by community-acquired strains as well as by nosocomial spread. Whole genome sequences from clinical samples contain a lot of information but that needs to be analyzed and compared in such a way that the outcome is useful for clinicians or epidemiologists. Here, we compare 663 public available complete genome sequences of C. difficile using average amino acid identity (AAI) scores. This analysis revealed that most of these genomes (640, 96.5%) clearly belong to the same species, while the remaining 23 genomes produce four distinct clusters within the Clostridioides genus. The main C. difficile cluster can be further divided into sub-clusters, depending on the chosen cutoff. We demonstrate that MLST, either based on partial or full gene-length, results in biased estimates of genetic differences and does not capture the true degree of similarity or differences of complete genomes. Presence of genes coding for C. difficile toxins A and B (ToxA/B), as well as the binary C. difficile toxin (CDT), was deduced from their unique PfamA domain architectures. Out of the 663 C. difficile genomes, 535 (80.7%) contained at least one copy of ToxA or ToxB, while these genes were missing from 128 genomes. Although some clusters were enriched for toxin presence, these genes are variably present in a given genetic background. The CDT genes were found in 191 genomes, which were restricted to a few clusters only, and only one cluster lacked the toxin A/B genes consistently. A total of 310 genomes contained ToxA/B without CDT (47%). Further, published metagenomic data from stools were used to assess the presence of C. difficile sequences in blinded cases of C. difficile infection (CDI) and controls, to test if metagenomic analysis is sensitive enough to detect the pathogen, and to establish strain relationships between cases from the same hospital. We conclude that metagenomics can contribute to the identification of CDI and can assist in characterization of the most probable causative strain in CDI patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,140,583
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Ecology
#1,134
of 2,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,282
of 448,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Ecology
#28
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 448,666 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.