↓ Skip to main content

Direct Detection of Fungal Siderophores on Bats with White-Nose Syndrome via Fluorescence Microscopy-Guided Ambient Ionization Mass Spectrometry

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Direct Detection of Fungal Siderophores on Bats with White-Nose Syndrome via Fluorescence Microscopy-Guided Ambient Ionization Mass Spectrometry
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0119668
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha J. Mascuch, Wilna J. Moree, Cheng-Chih Hsu, Gregory G. Turner, Tina L. Cheng, David S. Blehert, A. Marm Kilpatrick, Winifred F. Frick, Michael J. Meehan, Pieter C. Dorrestein, Lena Gerwick

Abstract

White-nose syndrome (WNS) caused by the pathogenic fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans is decimating the populations of several hibernating North American bat species. Little is known about the molecular interplay between pathogen and host in this disease. Fluorescence microscopy ambient ionization mass spectrometry was used to generate metabolic profiles from the wings of both healthy and diseased bats of the genus Myotis. Fungal siderophores, molecules that scavenge iron from the environment, were detected on the wings of bats with WNS, but not on healthy bats. This work is among the first examples in which microbial molecules are directly detected from an infected host and highlights the ability of atmospheric ionization methodologies to provide direct molecular insight into infection.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Professor 6 10%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 22%
Chemistry 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 8%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 27 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,336,683
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#29,735
of 194,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,669
of 286,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#751
of 6,078 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 286,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,078 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.