↓ Skip to main content

Use of vital wheat gluten in aquaculture feeds

Overview of attention for article published in Aquatic Biosystems, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Use of vital wheat gluten in aquaculture feeds
Published in
Aquatic Biosystems, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-9063-9-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuelle Apper-Bossard, Aurélien Feneuil, Anne Wagner, Frédérique Respondek

Abstract

In aquaculture, when alternative protein sources of Fish Meal (FM) in diets are investigated, Plant Proteins (PP) can be used. Among them, Vital Wheat Gluten (VWG) is a proteinaceous material obtained from wheat after starch extraction. "It is mainly composed of two types of proteins, gliadins and glutenins, which confer specific visco-elasticity that's to say ability to form a network providing suitable binding. This will lead to specific technological properties that are notably relevant to extruded feeds". Besides these properties, VWG is a high-protein ingredient with an interesting amino-acid profile. Whereas it is rather low in lysine, it contains more sulfur amino acids than other PP sources and it is high in glutamine, which is known to improve gut health and modulate immunity. VWG is a protein source with one of the highest nitrogen digestibility due to a lack of protease inhibitor activity and to the lenient process used to make the product. By this way, addition of VWG in diet does not adversely affect growth performance in many fish species, even at a high level, and may secure high PP level diets that can induce health damages.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Greece 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 54 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 4 7%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 61%
Engineering 4 7%
Chemistry 3 5%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,935,233
of 15,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Aquatic Biosystems
#11
of 47 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,258
of 262,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aquatic Biosystems
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one scored the same or higher as 36 of them.
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 262,481 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.