↓ Skip to main content

Identification of a genetic determinant in clinical Enterococcus faecium strains which contributes to intestinal colonization during antibiotic treatment.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Infectious Diseases, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Identification of a genetic determinant in clinical Enterococcus faecium strains which contributes to intestinal colonization during antibiotic treatment.
Published in
Journal of Infectious Diseases, February 2013
DOI 10.1093/infdis/jit076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willem van Schaik

Abstract

Intestinal colonization by antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecium is the first step in a process that can lead to infections in hospitalized patients. By comparative genome analysis and subsequent polymerase chain reaction screening, we identified a locus that encodes a putative phosphotransferase system (PTS). The PTS locus was widespread in isolates from hospital outbreaks of infection (84.2%) and nonoutbreak clinical infections (66.0%) but absent from human commensal isolates. Deletion of pstD, which is predicted to encode the enzyme IID subunit of this PTS, significantly impaired the ability of E. faecium to colonize the murine intestinal tract during antibiotic treatment. This is the first description of a determinant that contributes to intestinal colonization in clinical E. faecium strains.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 25%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 10%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 6 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,600,492
of 11,331,824 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#3,088
of 9,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,643
of 127,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#8
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,331,824 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 127,264 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.