↓ Skip to main content

PhyloChip™ microarray comparison of sampling methods used for coral microbial ecology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Microbiological Methods, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
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
PhyloChip™ microarray comparison of sampling methods used for coral microbial ecology
Published in
Journal of Microbiological Methods, November 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.mimet.2011.10.019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina A. Kellogg, Yvette M. Piceno, Lauren M. Tom, Todd Z. DeSantis, David G. Zawada, Gary L. Andersen

Abstract

Interest in coral microbial ecology has been increasing steadily over the last decade, yet standardized methods of sample collection still have not been defined. Two methods were compared for their ability to sample coral-associated microbial communities: tissue punches and foam swabs, the latter being less invasive and preferred by reef managers. Four colonies of star coral, Montastraea annularis, were sampled in the Dry Tortugas National Park (two healthy and two with white plague disease). The PhyloChip™ G3 microarray was used to assess microbial community structure of amplified 16S rRNA gene sequences. Samples clustered based on methodology rather than coral colony. Punch samples from healthy and diseased corals were distinct. All swab samples clustered closely together with the seawater control and did not group according to the health state of the corals. Although more microbial taxa were detected by the swab method, there is a much larger overlap between the water control and swab samples than punch samples, suggesting some of the additional diversity is due to contamination from water absorbed by the swab. While swabs are useful for noninvasive studies of the coral surface mucus layer, these results show that they are not optimal for studies of coral disease.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 63 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 53%
Environmental Science 10 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 10 15%
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 17 January 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Microbiological Methods
#1,897
of 2,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,057
of 153,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Microbiological Methods
#22
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 153,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.