Supershedders have been suggested to be major drivers of transmission of Escherichia coli O157:H7 (E. coli O157:H7) among cattle in feedlot environments, despite our relatively limited knowledge of the processes that govern periods of high shedding within an individual animal. In this study, we attempt a data-driven approach, estimating the key characteristics of high shedding behaviour, including effects on transmission to other animals, directly from a study of natural E. coli O157:H7 infection of cattle in a research feedlot, in order to develop an evidence-based definition of supershedding. In contrast to the hypothesized role of supershedders, we found that high shedding individuals only modestly increased the risk of transmission: individuals shedding over 10(3) cfu g(-1) faeces were estimated to pose a risk of transmission only 2.45 times greater than those shedding below that level. The data suggested that shedding above 10(3) cfu g(-1) faeces was the most appropriate definition of supershedding behaviour and under this definition supershedding was surprisingly common, with an estimated prevalence of 31.3% in colonized individuals. We found no evidence that environmental contamination by faeces of shedding cattle contributed to transmission over timescales longer than 3 days and preliminary evidence that higher stocking density increased the risk of transmission.
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 16 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,402,915
of 26,855,601 outputs
Outputs from Journal of The Royal Society Interface
#2,242
of 3,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,638
of 279,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of The Royal Society Interface
#41
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,855,601 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. 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 279,365 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 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
