↓ Skip to main content

Anaerobic bacteria in the intestinal microbiota of Brazilian children

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Anaerobic bacteria in the intestinal microbiota of Brazilian children
Published in
Clinics, March 2017
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2017(03)05
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia T Talarico, Florenza E Santos, Katia Galeão Brandt, Marina B Martinez, Carla R Taddei

Abstract

Changes in the neonatal gut environment allow for the colonization of the mucin layer and lumen by anaerobic bacteria. The aim of the present study was to evaluate Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and Lactococcus colonization through the first year of life in a group of 12 Brazilian infants and to correlate these data with the levels of Escherichia coli. The presence of anaerobic members of the adult intestinal microbiota, including Eubacterium limosum and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, was also evaluated. Fecal samples were collected during the first year of life, and 16S rRNA from anaerobic and facultative bacteria was detected by real-time PCR. Bifidobacterium was present at the highest levels at all of the studied time points, followed by E. coli and Lactobacillus. E. limosum was rarely detected, and F. prausnitzii was detected only in the samples from the latest time points. These results are consistent with reports throughout the world on the community structure of the intestinal microbiota in infants fed a milk diet. Our findings also provide evidence for the influence of the environment on intestinal colonization due to the high abundance of E. coli. The presence of important anaerobic genera was observed in Brazilian infants living at a low socioeconomic level, a result that has already been well established for infants living in developed countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 22 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 27 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#602
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,388
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.