↓ Skip to main content

Developments in Fungal Taxonomy

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews, July 1999
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
20 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
356 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
755 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Developments in Fungal Taxonomy
Published in
Clinical Microbiology Reviews, July 1999
DOI 10.1128/cmr.12.3.454
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josep Guarro, Josepa Gené, Alberto M. Stchigel

Abstract

Fungal infections, especially those caused by opportunistic species, have become substantially more common in recent decades. Numerous species cause human infections, and several new human pathogens are discovered yearly. This situation has created an increasing interest in fungal taxonomy and has led to the development of new methods and approaches to fungal biosystematics which have promoted important practical advances in identification procedures. However, the significance of some data provided by the new approaches is still unclear, and results drawn from such studies may even increase nomenclatural confusion. Analyses of rRNA and rDNA sequences constitute an important complement of the morphological criteria needed to allow clinical fungi to be more easily identified and placed on a single phylogenetic tree. Most of the pathogenic fungi so far described belong to the kingdom Fungi; two belong to the kingdom Chromista. Within the Fungi, they are distributed in three phyla and in 15 orders (Pneumocystidales, Saccharomycetales, Dothideales, Sordariales, Onygenales, Eurotiales, Hypocreales, Ophiostomatales, Microascales, Tremellales, Poriales, Stereales, Agaricales, Schizophyllales, and Ustilaginales).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 755 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 13 2%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
India 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Poland 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Other 19 3%
Unknown 702 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 123 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 119 16%
Student > Bachelor 107 14%
Researcher 103 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 48 6%
Other 141 19%
Unknown 114 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 346 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 91 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 31 4%
Environmental Science 30 4%
Other 79 10%
Unknown 141 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 April 2024.
All research outputs
#4,724,309
of 23,269,984 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Microbiology Reviews
#708
of 1,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,897
of 35,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Microbiology Reviews
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,269,984 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 35,177 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.