↓ Skip to main content

Chemoreceptors of Escherichia coli CFT073 Play Redundant Roles in Chemotaxis toward Urine

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Chemoreceptors of Escherichia coli CFT073 Play Redundant Roles in Chemotaxis toward Urine
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0054133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erica L. Raterman, Rodney A. Welch

Abstract

Community-acquired urinary tract infections (UTIs) are commonly caused by uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC). We hypothesize that chemotaxis toward ligands present in urine could direct UPEC into and up the urinary tract. Wild-type E. coli CFT073 and chemoreceptor mutants with tsr, tar, or aer deletions were tested for chemotaxis toward human urine in the capillary tube assay. Wild-type CFT073 was attracted toward urine, and Tsr and Tar were the chemoreceptors mainly responsible for mediating this response. The individual components of urine including L-amino acids, D-amino acids and various organic compounds were also tested in the capillary assay with wild-type CFT073. Our results indicate that CFT073 is attracted toward some L- amino acids and possibly toward some D-amino acids but not other common compounds found in urine such as urea, creatinine and glucuronic acid. In the murine model of UTI, the loss of any two chemoreceptors did not affect the ability of the bacteria to compete with the wild-type strain. Our data suggest that the presence of any strong attractant and its associated chemoreceptor might be sufficient for colonization of the urinary tract and that amino acids are the main chemoattractants for E. coli strain CFT073 in this niche.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 33%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 47%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 2 6%
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 31 January 2013.
All research outputs
#22,280,314
of 24,865,967 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#194,412
of 215,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,385
of 293,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,194
of 5,026 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,865,967 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 215,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. 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 293,788 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 5,026 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.