↓ Skip to main content

Screening for enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis in stool samples

Overview of attention for article published in Anaerobe, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
51 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.
Article details
Title
Screening for enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis in stool samples
Published in
Anaerobe, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.05.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Bacteroides fragilis is a commensal bacterium found in the gut of most humans, however enterotoxigenic B. fragilis strains (ETBF) have been associated with diarrhoea and colorectal cancer (CRC). The purpose of this study was to establish a method of screening for the Bacteroides fragilis toxin (bft) gene in stool samples, as a means of determining if carriage of ETBF is detected more often in CRC patients than in age-matched healthy controls. Stool samples from 71 patients recently diagnosed with CRC, and 71 age-matched controls, were screened by standard and quantitative PCR using primers specific for the detection of the bft gene. Bacterial template DNA from stool samples was prepared by two methods: a sweep, where all colonies growing on Bacteroides Bile Esculin agar following stool culture for 48 h at 37 °C in an anaerobic environment were swept into sterile water and heat treated; and a direct DNA extraction from each stool sample. The bft gene was detected more frequently from DNA isolated from bacterial sweeps than from matched direct DNA extractions. qPCR was found to be more sensitive than standard PCR in detecting bft. The cumulative total of positive qPCR assays from both sample types revealed that 19 of the CRC patients had evidence of the toxin gene in their stool sample (27%), compared to seven of the age-matched controls (10%). This difference was significant (P = 0.016). Overall, ETBF carriage was detected more often in CRC patient stool samples compared to controls, but disparate findings from the different DNA preparations and testing methods suggests that poor sensitivity may limit molecular detection of ETBF in stool samples.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 10%
Chemical Engineering 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Anaerobe
#886
of 1,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,711
of 312,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaerobe
#21
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 312,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.