| Title |
Dissecting cause and effect in host-microbiome interactions using the combined worm-bug model system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biogerontology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10522-018-9752-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marina Ezcurra |
| Abstract |
High-throughput molecular studies are greatly advancing our knowledge of the human microbiome and its specific role in governing health and disease states. A myriad of ongoing studies aim at identifying links between microbial community disequilibria (dysbiosis) and human diseases. However, due to the inherent complexity and heterogeneity of the human microbiome we need robust experimental models that allow the systematic manipulation of variables to test the multitude of hypotheses arisen from large-scale 'meta-omic' projects. The nematode C. elegans combined with bacterial models offers an avenue to dissect cause and effect in host-microbiome interactions. This combined model allows the genetic manipulation of both host and microbial genetics and the use of a variety of tools, to identify pathways affecting host health. A number of recent high impact studies have used C. elegans to identify microbial pathways affecting ageing and longevity, demonstrating the power of the combined C. elegans-bacterial model. Here I will review the current state of the field, what we have learned from using C. elegans to study gut microbiome and host interactions, and the potential of using this model system in the future. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 24% |
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 21% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,786,386
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Biogerontology
#64
of 660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,748
of 332,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biogerontology
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 332,288 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.