↓ Skip to main content

Which Fungus Originally was Trichophyton mentagrophytes? Historical Review and Illustration by a Clinical Case

Overview of attention for article published in Mycopathologia, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Which Fungus Originally was Trichophyton mentagrophytes? Historical Review and Illustration by a Clinical Case
Published in
Mycopathologia, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11046-015-9893-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annemay Chollet, Vincent Cattin, Marina Fratti, Bernard Mignon, Michel Monod

Abstract

Several dermatophytes producing numerous pyriform or round microconidia were called Trichophyton mentagrophytes. Among these dermatophytes are the teleomorph species Arthroderma benhamiae, Arthroderma vanbreuseghemii and Arthroderma simii, and other species such as Trichophyton interdigitale, Trichophyton erinacei and Trichophyton quinckeanum for which only the anamorph is known. Confusion exists about which fungus should be really called T. mentagrophytes and about the rational use of this name in practice. We report a case of beard ringworm (tinea barbae) with A. vanbreuseghemii. According to both clinical signs and the type of hair parasitism, this case was exactly compatible to the first description of a non-favic dermatophytosis by Gruby under the name of "mentagrophyte" from which was derived the dermatophyte epithet mentagrophytes. In addition, the phenotypic characters of the isolated fungus in cultures perfectly matched with those of the first description of a dermatophyte under T. mentagrophytes by Blanchard (Parasites animaux et parasites végétaux à l'exclusion des Bactéries, Masson, Paris, 1896). In conclusion, T. mentagrophytes corresponds to the fungus later named A. vanbreuseghemii. However, because the neotype of T. mentagrophytes was not adequately designated in regard to the ancient literature, we would privilege the use of A. vanbreuseghemii and abandon the name of T. mentagrophytes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 February 2021.
All research outputs
#7,218,678
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Mycopathologia
#195
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,789
of 265,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mycopathologia
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 265,019 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.