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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Is Malassezia nana the main species in horses’ ear canal microbiome?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.04.017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Lúcia Aldrovandi, Lika Osugui, Selene Dall’ Acqua Coutinho |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to characterize genotypically Malassezia spp. isolated from the external ear canal of healthy horses. Fifty-five horses, 39 (70.9%) males and 16 (29.1%) females, from different breeds and adults were studied. External ear canals were cleaned and a sterile cotton swab was introduced to collect cerumen. A total of 110 samples were cultured into Dixon medium and were incubated at 32°C for up to 15 days. Macro- and micromorphology and phenotypic identification were performed. DNA was extracted, strains were submitted to polymerase chain reaction technique, and the products obtained were submitted to Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism using the restriction enzymes BstCI and HhaI. Strains were sent off to genetic sequencing of the regions 26S rDNA D1/D2 and ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 rDNA. Malassezia spp. were isolated from 33/55 (60%) animals and 52/110 (47%) ear canals. No growth on Sabouraud dextrose agar was observed, confirming the lipid dependence of all strains. Polymerase chain reaction-Restriction fragment length polymorphism permitted the molecular identification of Malassezia nana - 42/52 (81%) and Malassezia slooffiae - 10/52 (19%). Sequencing confirmed RFLP identification. It was surprising that M. nana represented over 80% of the strains and no Malassezia equina was isolated in this study, differing from what was expected. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 25% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 25% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,778,616
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#55
of 1,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,698
of 312,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,377 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 312,751 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.