↓ Skip to main content

Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 541)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
8 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
2265 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
Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tânia A.T. Gomes, Waldir P. Elias, Isabel C.A. Scaletsky, Beatriz E.C. Guth, Juliana F. Rodrigues, Roxane M.F. Piazza, Luís C.S. Ferreira, Marina B. Martinez

Abstract

Most Escherichia coli strains live harmlessly in the intestines and rarely cause disease in healthy individuals. Nonetheless, a number of pathogenic strains can cause diarrhea or extraintestinal diseases both in healthy and immunocompromised individuals. Diarrheal illnesses are a severe public health problem and a major cause of morbidity and mortality in infants and young children, especially in developing countries. E. coli strains that cause diarrhea have evolved by acquiring, through horizontal gene transfer, a particular set of characteristics that have successfully persisted in the host. According to the group of virulence determinants acquired, specific combinations were formed determining the currently known E. coli pathotypes, which are collectively known as diarrheagenic E. coli. In this review, we have gathered information on current definitions, serotypes, lineages, virulence mechanisms, epidemiology, and diagnosis of the major diarrheagenic E. coli pathotypes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 2,265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 <1%
Mexico 5 <1%
India 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Ireland 3 <1%
Kenya 3 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Greece 2 <1%
Other 27 1%
Unknown 2201 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 457 20%
Student > Master 358 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 299 13%
Researcher 199 9%
Student > Postgraduate 129 6%
Other 347 15%
Unknown 476 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 586 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 282 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 232 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 203 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 89 4%
Other 328 14%
Unknown 545 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 04 March 2022.
All research outputs
#502,384
of 21,331,631 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#4
of 541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,894
of 418,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,331,631 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 541 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 418,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.