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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genetic profiling for Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species in ticks collected in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Microbiology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12866-017-0955-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benson C. Iweriebor, Elia J. Mmbaga, Abiodun Adegborioye, Aboi Igwaran, Larry C. Obi, Anthony I. Okoh |
| Abstract |
Anaplasma and Ehrlichia are emerging tick-borne pathogens that cause anaplasmosis and ehrlichiosis in humans and other animals worldwide. Infections caused by these pathogens are deadly if left untreated. There has been relatively no systematic survey of these pathogens among ticks in South Africa, thus necessitating this study. The presence of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia species were demonstrated by PCR in ticks collected from domestic ruminants at some selected communities in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. The ticks were identified by morphological characteristics and thereafter processed to extract bacterial DNA, which was analyzed for the presence of genetic materials of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia. Three genera of ticks comprising five species were identified. The screening yielded 16 positive genetic materials that were phylogenetically related to Ehrlichia sequences obtained from GenBank, while no positive result was obtained for Anaplasma. The obtained Ehrlichia sequences were closely related to E. chaffeensis, E. canis, E. muris and the incompletely described Ehrlichia sp. UFMG-EV and Ehrlichia sp. UFMT. The findings showed that ticks in the studied areas were infected with Ehrlichia spp. and that the possibility of transmission to humans who might be tick infested is high. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 20% |
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 25% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 9 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,542,806
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#2,254
of 3,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,599
of 312,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#43
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,205 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 312,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.