↓ Skip to main content

Complementary approaches to diagnosing marine diseases: a union of the modern and the classic

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Complementary approaches to diagnosing marine diseases: a union of the modern and the classic
Published in
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, March 2016
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2015.0207
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colleen A. Burge, Carolyn S. Friedman, Rodman Getchell, Marcia House, Kevin D. Lafferty, Laura D. Mydlarz, Katherine C. Prager, Kathryn P. Sutherland, Tristan Renault, Ikunari Kiryu, Rebecca Vega-Thurber

Abstract

Linking marine epizootics to a specific aetiology is notoriously difficult. Recent diagnostic successes show that marine disease diagnosis requires both modern, cutting-edge technology (e.g. metagenomics, quantitative real-time PCR) and more classic methods (e.g. transect surveys, histopathology and cell culture). Here, we discuss how this combination of traditional and modern approaches is necessary for rapid and accurate identification of marine diseases, and emphasize how sole reliance on any one technology or technique may lead disease investigations astray. We present diagnostic approaches at different scales, from the macro (environment, community, population and organismal scales) to the micro (tissue, organ, cell and genomic scales). We use disease case studies from a broad range of taxa to illustrate diagnostic successes from combining traditional and modern diagnostic methods. Finally, we recognize the need for increased capacity of centralized databases, networks, data repositories and contingency plans for diagnosis and management of marine disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 112 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Researcher 22 19%
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 39%
Environmental Science 19 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 17 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,322,639
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#4,433
of 7,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,115
of 314,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#67
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 314,302 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.