↓ Skip to main content

Real-Time Whole-Genome Sequencing for Surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes, France - Volume 23, Number 9—September 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, September 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
29 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Real-Time Whole-Genome Sequencing for Surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes, France - Volume 23, Number 9—September 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
Published in
Emerging Infectious Diseases, September 2017
DOI 10.3201/eid2309.170336
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra Moura, Mathieu Tourdjman, Alexandre Leclercq, Estelle Hamelin, Edith Laurent, Nathalie Fredriksen, Dieter Van Cauteren, Hélène Bracq-Dieye, Pierre Thouvenot, Guillaume Vales, Nathalie Tessaud-Rita, Mylène M. Maury, Andreea Alexandru, Alexis Criscuolo, Emmanuel Quevillon, Marie-Pierre Donguy, Vincent Enouf, Henriette de Valk, Sylvain Brisse, Marc Lecuit

Abstract

During 2015-2016, we evaluated the performance of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a routine typing tool. Its added value for microbiological and epidemiologic surveillance of listeriosis was compared with that for pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), the current standard method. A total of 2,743 Listeria monocytogenes isolates collected as part of routine surveillance were characterized in parallel by PFGE and core genome multilocus sequence typing (cgMLST) extracted from WGS. We investigated PFGE and cgMLST clusters containing human isolates. Discrimination of isolates was significantly higher by cgMLST than by PFGE (p<0.001). cgMLST discriminated unrelated isolates that shared identical PFGE profiles and phylogenetically closely related isolates with distinct PFGE profiles. This procedure also refined epidemiologic investigations to include only phylogenetically closely related isolates, improved source identification, and facilitated epidemiologic investigations, enabling identification of more outbreaks at earlier stages. WGS-based typing should replace PFGE as the primary typing method for L. monocytogenes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 42 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 23 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,700,184
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,913
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,703
of 325,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#27
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 325,055 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.