↓ Skip to main content

Mechanistic Model of Rothia mucilaginosa Adaptation toward Persistence in the CF Lung, Based on a Genome Reconstructed from Metagenomic Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Mechanistic Model of Rothia mucilaginosa Adaptation toward Persistence in the CF Lung, Based on a Genome Reconstructed from Metagenomic Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0064285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Wei Lim, Robert Schmieder, Matthew Haynes, Mike Furlan, T. David Matthews, Katrine Whiteson, Stephen J. Poole, Christopher S. Hayes, David A. Low, Heather Maughan, Robert Edwards, Douglas Conrad, Forest Rohwer

Abstract

The impaired mucociliary clearance in individuals with Cystic Fibrosis (CF) enables opportunistic pathogens to colonize CF lungs. Here we show that Rothia mucilaginosa is a common CF opportunist that was present in 83% of our patient cohort, almost as prevalent as Pseudomonas aeruginosa (89%). Sequencing of lung microbial metagenomes identified unique R. mucilaginosa strains in each patient, presumably due to evolution within the lung. The de novo assembly of a near-complete R. mucilaginosa (CF1E) genome illuminated a number of potential physiological adaptations to the CF lung, including antibiotic resistance, utilization of extracellular lactate, and modification of the type I restriction-modification system. Metabolic characteristics predicted from the metagenomes suggested R. mucilaginosa have adapted to live within the microaerophilic surface of the mucus layer in CF lungs. The results also highlight the remarkable evolutionary and ecological similarities of many CF pathogens; further examination of these similarities has the potential to guide patient care and treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 7%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,850,834
of 24,896,578 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#127,855
of 215,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,746
of 199,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,600
of 4,775 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,896,578 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 215,687 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 199,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,775 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.