| Title |
Geogenomic Segregation and Temporal Trends of Human Pathogenic Escherichia coli O157:H7, Washington, USA, 2005–2014 - Volume 24, Number 1—January 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2401.170851 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gillian A.M. Tarr, Smriti Shringi, Amanda I. Phipps, Thomas E. Besser, Jonathan Mayer, Hanna N. Oltean, Jon Wakefield, Phillip I. Tarr, Peter Rabinowitz |
| Abstract |
The often-noted and persistent increased incidence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in rural areas is not well understood. We used a cohort of E. coli O157:H7 cases reported in Washington, USA, during 2005-2014, along with phylogenomic characterization of the infecting isolates, to identify geographic segregation of and temporal trends in specific phylogenetic lineages of E. coli O157:H7. Kernel estimation and generalized additive models demonstrated that pathogen lineages were spatially segregated during the period of analysis and identified a focus of segregation spanning multiple, predominantly rural, counties for each of the main clinical lineages, Ib, IIa, and IIb. These results suggest the existence of local reservoirs from which humans are infected. We also noted a secular increase in the proportion of lineage IIa and IIb isolates. Spatial segregation by phylogenetic lineage offers the potential to identify local reservoirs and intervene to prevent continued transmission. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,456,235
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#8,861
of 9,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,166
of 442,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#144
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 442,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.