↓ Skip to main content

Comparative study on the gut microbiotas of four economically important Asian carp species

Overview of attention for article published in Science China Life Sciences, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Comparative study on the gut microbiotas of four economically important Asian carp species
Published in
Science China Life Sciences, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11427-016-9296-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xinghao Li, Yuhe Yu, Chang Li, Qingyun Yan

Abstract

Gut microbiota of four economically important Asian carp species (silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix; bighead carp, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis; grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella; common carp, Cyprinus carpio) were compared using 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Analysis of more than 590,000 quality-filtered sequences obtained from the foregut, midgut and hindgut of these four carp species revealed high microbial diversity among the samples. The foregut samples of grass carp exhibited more than 1,600 operational taxonomy units (OTUs) and the highest alpha-diversity index, followed by the silver carp foregut and midgut. Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes and Fusobacteria were the predominant phyla regardless of fish species or gut type. Pairwise (weighted) UniFrac distance-based permutational multivariate analysis of variance with fish species as a factor produced significant association (P<0.01). The gut microbiotas of all four carp species harbored saccharolytic or proteolytic microbes, likely in response to the differences in their feeding habits. In addition, extensive variations were also observed even within the same fish species. Our results indicate that the gut microbiotas of Asian carp depend on the exact species, even when the different species were cohabiting in the same environment. This study provides some new insights into developing commercial fish feeds and improving existing aquaculture strategies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 30%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 37%
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 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,458,055
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#479
of 1,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,123
of 327,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 327,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 73% of its contemporaries.