↓ Skip to main content

Limitations to estimating bacterial cross‐species transmission using genetic and genomic markers: inferences from simulation modeling

Overview of attention for article published in Evolutionary Applications, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Limitations to estimating bacterial cross‐species transmission using genetic and genomic markers: inferences from simulation modeling
Published in
Evolutionary Applications, July 2014
DOI 10.1111/eva.12173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julio A Benavides, Paul C Cross, Gordon Luikart, Scott Creel

Abstract

Cross-species transmission (CST) of bacterial pathogens has major implications for human health, livestock, and wildlife management because it determines whether control actions in one species may have subsequent effects on other potential host species. The study of bacterial transmission has benefitted from methods measuring two types of genetic variation: variable number of tandem repeats (VNTRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). However, it is unclear whether these data can distinguish between different epidemiological scenarios. We used a simulation model with two host species and known transmission rates (within and between species) to evaluate the utility of these markers for inferring CST. We found that CST estimates are biased for a wide range of parameters when based on VNTRs and a most parsimonious reconstructed phylogeny. However, estimations of CST rates lower than 5% can be achieved with relatively low bias using as low as 250 SNPs. CST estimates are sensitive to several parameters, including the number of mutations accumulated since introduction, stochasticity, the genetic difference of strains introduced, and the sampling effort. Our results suggest that, even with whole-genome sequences, unbiased estimates of CST will be difficult when sampling is limited, mutation rates are low, or for pathogens that were recently introduced.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
China 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 3 6%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 57%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 6 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 June 2021.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Evolutionary Applications
#987
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,112
of 239,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolutionary Applications
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 239,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.