↓ Skip to main content

Fluorescence amplified fragment length polymorphism compared to pulsed field gel electrophoresis for Listeria monocytogenes subtyping

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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.
Title
Fluorescence amplified fragment length polymorphism compared to pulsed field gel electrophoresis for Listeria monocytogenes subtyping
Published in
BMC Microbiology, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2180-13-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Roussel, Benjamin Félix, Kathie Grant, Trinh Tam Dao, Anne Brisabois, Corinne Amar

Abstract

Listeriosis is a severe infection which mainly affects pregnant women, neonates and immuno-compromised adults. ANSES's Laboratory for Food safety has been the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for L. monocytogenes in the food chain since 2006. Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) is routinely used in the EURL for the surveillance of L. monocytogenes isolated from foods, animals and the environment. One of the main EURL activities is to evaluate alternative molecular subtyping methods to PFGE, and integrate their use within the National Reference Laboratories (NRL) network. Since 2008, the United Kingdom (UK)-NRL for L. monocytogenes at the Health Protection Agency (HPA), London, has used fluorescent Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (fAFLP) for the routine surveillance of L. monocytogenes isolated from human clinical cases, food and food processing environments in the UK. This study compares fAFLP with PFGE for subtyping L. monocytogenes.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 4 11%

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 08 February 2013.
All research outputs
#2,654,036
of 5,028,115 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#511
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,143
of 290,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#26
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,028,115 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 290,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.