↓ Skip to main content

Comparative analyses of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in hoatzins and cows

Overview of attention for article published in The ISME Journal, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
156 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
276 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative analyses of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in hoatzins and cows
Published in
The ISME Journal, September 2011
DOI 10.1038/ismej.2011.131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filipa Godoy-Vitorino, Katherine C Goldfarb, Ulas Karaoz, Sara Leal, Maria A Garcia-Amado, Philip Hugenholtz, Susannah G Tringe, Eoin L Brodie, Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello

Abstract

Foregut fermentation occurs in mammalian ruminants and in one bird, the South American folivorous hoatzin. This bird has an enlarged crop with a function analogous to the rumen, where foregut microbes degrade the otherwise indigestible plant matter, providing energy to the host from foregut fermentation, in addition to the fermentation that occurs in their hindguts (cecum/colon). As foregut fermentation represents an evolutionary convergence between hoatzins and ruminants, our aim was to compare the community structure of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in the cow and hoatzin to evaluate the influences of host phylogeny and organ function in shaping the gut microbiome. The approach used was to hybridize amplified bacterial ribosomal RNA genes onto a high-density microarray (PhyloChip). The results show that the microbial communities cluster primarily by functional environment (foreguts cluster separately from hindguts) and then by host. Bacterial community diversity was higher in the cow than in the hoatzin. Overall, compared with hindguts, foreguts have higher proportions of Bacteroidetes and Spirochaetes, and lower proportions of Firmicutes and Proteobacteria. The main host differences in gut bacterial composition include a higher representation of Spirochaetes, Synergistetes and Verrucomicrobia in the cow. Despite the significant differences in host phylogeny, body size, physiology and diet, the function seems to shape the microbial communities involved in fermentation. Regardless of the independent origin of foregut fermentation in birds and mammals, organ function has led to convergence of the microbial community structure in phylogenetically distant hosts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 267 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 25%
Student > Bachelor 43 16%
Researcher 38 14%
Student > Master 34 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 37 13%
Unknown 42 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 135 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 14%
Environmental Science 14 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 4%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 53 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,884,909
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from The ISME Journal
#988
of 3,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,899
of 141,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The ISME Journal
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 3,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 141,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.