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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Rhizobacterial characterization for quality control of eucalyptus biogrowth promoter products
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.07.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Talyta Galafassi Zarpelon, Lúcio Mauro da Silva Guimarães, Poliane Alfenas-Zerbini, Eli Sidney Lopes, Reginaldo Gonçalves Mafia, Acelino Couto Alfenas |
| Abstract |
Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria strains from special formulations have been used to optimize eucalyptus cutting production. To undertake quality control for the formulated products, the rhizobacterial strains should be characterized to assess their purity and authentication. In the present study, we characterized nine strains of rhizobacteria, including three Bacillus subtilis (S1, S2 and 3918), two Pseudomonas sp. (MF4 and FL2), P. putida (MF2), P. fulva (Ca), Frateuria aurantia (R1), and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (CIIb). The strains were differentiated by colony morphology after 24h of incubation in three different solid state culture media (glucose-nutritive agar, 523 medium and yeast extract-mannitol agar), sensitivity to a panel of 28 antibiotics (expressed according to the formation of inhibition halos of bacterial growth in the presence of antibiotics), and PCR-RFLP profiles of the 16S rDNA gene produced using nine restriction enzymes. It was possible to differentiate all nine strains of rhizobacteria using their morphological characteristics and sensitivity to antibiotics. The molecular analysis allowed us to separate the strains CIIb, FL2 and R1 from the strains belonging to the genera Bacillus and Pseudomonas. By using these three methods concomitantly, we were able to determine strain purity and perform the authentication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 42% |
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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#529
of 1,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,901
of 380,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,377 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 380,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 55% of its contemporaries.