↓ Skip to main content

Prokaryotic horizontal gene transfer within the human holobiont: ecological-evolutionary inferences, implications and possibilities

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, September 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
Prokaryotic horizontal gene transfer within the human holobiont: ecological-evolutionary inferences, implications and possibilities
Published in
Microbiome, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40168-018-0551-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramakrishnan Sitaraman

Abstract

The ubiquity of horizontal gene transfer in the living world, especially among prokaryotes, raises interesting and important scientific questions regarding its effects on the human holobiont i.e., the human and its resident bacterial communities considered together as a unit of selection. Specifically, it would be interesting to determine how particular gene transfer events have influenced holobiont phenotypes in particular ecological niches and, conversely, how specific holobiont phenotypes have influenced gene transfer events. In this synthetic review, we list some notable and recent discoveries of horizontal gene transfer among the prokaryotic component of the human microbiota, and analyze their potential impact on the holobiont from an ecological-evolutionary viewpoint. Finally, the human-Helicobacter pylori association is presented as an illustration of these considerations, followed by a delineation of unresolved questions and avenues for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Master 9 7%
Lecturer 4 3%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 48 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 15 11%
Environmental Science 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 47 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 25 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,535,523
of 25,388,177 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#544
of 1,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,287
of 351,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#23
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,177 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.3. 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 351,034 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 64% of its contemporaries.