| Title |
Characterization of Dickeya and Pectobacterium species by capillary electrophoretic techniques and MALDI-TOF MS
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-015-8920-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jiří Šalplachta, Anna Kubesová, Jaroslav Horký, Hana Matoušková, Marie Tesařová, Marie Horká |
| Abstract |
Dickeya and Pectobacterium species represent an important group of broad-host-range phytopathogens responsible for blackleg and soft rot diseases on numerous plants including many economically important plants. Although these species are commonly detected using cultural, serological, and molecular methods, these methods are sometimes insufficient to classify the bacteria correctly. On that account, this study was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of three individual analytical techniques, capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE), capillary isoelectric focusing (CIEF), and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS), for reliable classification of Dickeya and Pectobacterium species. Forty-three strains, representing different Dickeya and Pectobacterium species, namely Dickeya dianthicola, Dickeya dadantii, Dickeya dieffenbachiae, Dickeya chrysanthemi, Dickeya zeae, Dickeya paradisiaca, Dickeya solani, Pectobacterium carotovorum, and Pectobacterium atrosepticum, were selected for this purpose. Furthermore, the selected bacteria included one strain which could not be classified using traditional microbiological methods. Characterization of the bacteria was based on different pI values (CIEF), migration velocities (CZE), or specific mass fingerprints (MALDI-TOF MS) of intact cells. All the examined strains, including the undetermined bacterium, were characterized and classified correctly into respective species. MALDI-TOF MS provided the most reliable results in this respect. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 29% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,542
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,113
of 275,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#77
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 275,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 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.