↓ Skip to main content

454 Pyrosequencing-based assessment of bacterial diversity and community structure in termite guts, mounds and surrounding soils

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
454 Pyrosequencing-based assessment of bacterial diversity and community structure in termite guts, mounds and surrounding soils
Published in
SpringerPlus, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1262-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huxley M. Makonde, Romano Mwirichia, Zipporah Osiemo, Hamadi I. Boga, Hans-Peter Klenk

Abstract

Termites constitute part of diverse and economically important termite fauna in Africa, but information on gut microbiota and their associated soil microbiome is still inadequate. In this study, we assessed and compared the bacterial diversity and community structure between termites' gut, their mounds and surrounding soil using the 454 pyrosequencing-based analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences. A wood-feeder termite (Microcerotermes sp.), three fungus-cultivating termites (Macrotermes michaelseni, Odontotermes sp. and Microtermes sp.), their associated mounds and corresponding savannah soil samples were analyzed. The pH of the gut homogenates and soil physico-chemical properties were determined. The results indicated significant difference in bacterial community composition and structure between the gut and corresponding soil samples. Soil samples (Chao1 index ranged from 1359 to 2619) had higher species richness than gut samples (Chao1 index ranged from 461 to 1527). The bacterial composition and community structure in the gut of Macrotermes michaelseni and Odontotermes sp. were almost identical but different from that of Microtermes and Microcerotermes species, which had unique community structures. The most predominant bacterial phyla in the gut were Bacteroidetes (40-58 %), Spirochaetes (10-70 %), Firmicutes (17-27 %) and Fibrobacteres (13 %) while in the soil samples were Acidobacteria (28-45 %), Actinobacteria (20-40 %) and Proteobacteria (18-24 %). Some termite gut-specific bacterial lineages belonging to the genera Dysgonomonas, Parabacteroides, Paludibacter, Tannerella, Alistipes, BCf9-17 termite group and Termite Treponema cluster were observed. The results not only demonstrated a high level of bacterial diversity in the gut and surrounding soil environments, but also presence of distinct bacterial communities that are yet to be cultivated. Therefore, combined efforts using both culture and culture-independent methods are suggested to comprehensively characterize the bacterial species and their specific roles in these environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 84 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 38%
Environmental Science 12 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 17 19%
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 12 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,707,852
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#801
of 1,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,213
of 272,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#54
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 272,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 53% of its contemporaries.