↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of microbial communities from different Jinhua ham factories

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Comparison of microbial communities from different Jinhua ham factories
Published in
AMB Express, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13568-017-0334-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qingfeng Ge, Yubin Gu, Wangang Zhang, Yongqi Yin, Hai Yu, Mangang Wu, Zhijun Wang, Guanghong Zhou, Qingfeng Ge, Yubin Gu, Wangang Zhang, Yongqi Yin, Hai Yu, Mangang Wu, Zhijun Wang, Guanghong Zhou

Abstract

Microbes in different aged workshops play important roles in the flavor formation of Jinhua ham. However, microbial diversity, community structure and age related changes in workshops are poorly understood. The microbial community structure and diversity in Jinhua ham produced in factories that have 5, 15, and 30 years of history in processing hams were compared using the pyrosequencing technique. Results showed that 571,703 high-quality sequences were obtained and located in 242 genera belonging to 18 phyla. Bacterial diversity and microbial community structure were significantly different with the years of workshops. Three-phase model to characterize the changes of ham microbial communities was proposed. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry assays indicated that the hams produced in different aged workshops have great differences in number and relative contents of volatiles compounds. These results suggest that different aged factories could form special and well-balanced microbial diversity, which may contribute to the unique flavor characteristics in Jinhua ham.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 44%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 13%
Unknown 7 44%

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 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,923,820
of 9,064,896 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#253
of 578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,097
of 316,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#22
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,064,896 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 578 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 316,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.