↓ Skip to main content

Phage lytic enzymes: a history

Overview of attention for article published in Virologica Sinica, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Phage lytic enzymes: a history
Published in
Virologica Sinica, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12250-014-3549-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Trudil

Abstract

There are many recent studies regarding the efficacy of bacteriophage-related lytic enzymes: the enzymes of 'bacteria-eaters' or viruses that infect bacteria. By degrading the cell wall of the targeted bacteria, these lytic enzymes have been shown to efficiently lyse Gram-positive bacteria without affecting normal flora and non-related bacteria. Recent studies have suggested approaches for lysing Gram-negative bacteria as well (Briersa Y, et al., 2014). These enzymes include: phage-lysozyme, endolysin, lysozyme, lysin, phage lysin, phage lytic enzymes, phageassociated enzymes, enzybiotics, muralysin, muramidase, virolysin and designations such as Ply, PAE and others. Bacteriophages are viruses that kill bacteria, do not contribute to antimicrobial resistance, are easy to develop, inexpensive to manufacture and safe for humans, animals and the environment. The current focus on lytic enzymes has been on their use as anti-infectives in humans and more recently in agricultural research models. The initial translational application of lytic enzymes, however, was not associated with treating or preventing a specific disease but rather as an extraction method to be incorporated in a rapid bacterial detection assay (Bernstein D, 1997).The current review traces the translational history of phage lytic enzymes-from their initial discovery in 1986 for the rapid detection of group A streptococcus in clinical specimens to evolving applications in the detection and prevention of disease in humans and in agriculture.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Other 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Chemistry 5 5%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 34 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 February 2015.
All research outputs
#15,322,159
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from Virologica Sinica
#286
of 570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,653
of 352,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virologica Sinica
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 352,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.