↓ Skip to main content

Equisetin as potential quorum sensing inhibitor of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology Techniques, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Equisetin as potential quorum sensing inhibitor of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Published in
Biotechnology Techniques, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10529-018-2527-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mengmeng Zhang, Mengjia Wang, Xiaocui Zhu, Wengong Yu, Qianhong Gong

Abstract

To screen for the quorum-sensing (QS) inhibitors from marine-derived fungi and evaluate their anti-QS properties in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. QS inhibitory activity was found in secondary metabolites of a marine fungus Fusarium sp. Z10 using P. aeruginosa QSIS-lasI biosensor. The major active compound of this fungus was isolated by HPLC and identified as equisetin. Subinhibitory concentration of equisetin could inhibit the formation of biofilm, swarming motility, and the production of virulence factors in P. aeruginosa. The inhibition of las, PQS, and rhl system by equisetin were determined using Escherichia coli MG4/pKDT17, E.coli pEAL08-2, and E.coli pDSY, respectively. Real-time RT-PCR assays showed that equisetin could downregulate the mRNA expression of QS-related genes. Equisetin proved its potential as an inhibitor against P. aeruginosa QS system and might also serve as precursor compound in development of novel therapeutics for infectious diseases by optimal design of structures.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Chemical Engineering 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 17 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,053,755
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Techniques
#2,163
of 2,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,006
of 346,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Techniques
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,762 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 346,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.