↓ Skip to main content

A primary assessment of the endophytic bacterial community in a xerophilous moss (Grimmia montana) using molecular method and cultivated isolates

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
A primary assessment of the endophytic bacterial community in a xerophilous moss (Grimmia montana) using molecular method and cultivated isolates
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, January 2014
DOI 10.1590/s1517-83822014000100022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao Lei Liu, Su Lin Liu, Min Liu, Bi He Kong, Lei Liu, Yan Hong Li

Abstract

Investigating the endophytic bacterial community in special moss species is fundamental to understanding the microbial-plant interactions and discovering the bacteria with stresses tolerance. Thus, the community structure of endophytic bacteria in the xerophilous moss Grimmia montana were estimated using a 16S rDNA library and traditional cultivation methods. In total, 212 sequences derived from the 16S rDNA library were used to assess the bacterial diversity. Sequence alignment showed that the endophytes were assigned to 54 genera in 4 phyla (Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Cytophaga/Flexibacter/Bacteroids). Of them, the dominant phyla were Proteobacteria (45.9%) and Firmicutes (27.6%), the most abundant genera included Acinetobacter, Aeromonas, Enterobacter, Leclercia, Microvirga, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Planococcus, Paenisporosarcina and Planomicrobium. In addition, a total of 14 species belonging to 8 genera in 3 phyla (Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria) were isolated, Curtobacterium, Massilia, Pseudomonas and Sphingomonas were the dominant genera. Although some of the genera isolated were inconsistent with those detected by molecular method, both of two methods proved that many different endophytic bacteria coexist in G. montana. According to the potential functional analyses of these bacteria, some species are known to have possible beneficial effects on hosts, but whether this is the case in G. montana needs to be confirmed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 22%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 20%
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 05 February 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#824
of 1,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,955
of 319,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#15
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 319,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 60% of its contemporaries.