↓ Skip to main content

Yersinia pestis and the Plague of Justinian 541–543 AD: a genomic analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 3,691)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
302 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Yersinia pestis and the Plague of Justinian 541–543 AD: a genomic analysis
Published in
Lancet Infectious Diseases, April 2014
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70323-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M Wagner, Jennifer Klunk, Michaela Harbeck, Alison Devault, Nicholas Waglechner, Jason W Sahl, Jacob Enk, Dawn N Birdsell, Melanie Kuch, Candice Lumibao, Debi Poinar, Talima Pearson, Mathieu Fourment, Brian Golding, Julia M Riehm, David J D Earn, Sharon DeWitte, Jean-Marie Rouillard, Gisela Grupe, Ingrid Wiechmann, James B Bliska, Paul S Keim, Holger C Scholz, Edward C Holmes, Hendrik Poinar

Abstract

Yersinia pestis has caused at least three human plague pandemics. The second (Black Death, 14-17th centuries) and third (19-20th centuries) have been genetically characterised, but there is only a limited understanding of the first pandemic, the Plague of Justinian (6-8th centuries). To address this gap, we sequenced and analysed draft genomes of Y pestis obtained from two individuals who died in the first pandemic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 149 tweeters 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 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 3%
Germany 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 277 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 76 25%
Student > Bachelor 58 19%
Researcher 54 18%
Student > Master 39 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 5%
Other 60 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 124 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 50 17%
Unspecified 27 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 8%
Social Sciences 18 6%
Other 60 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 958. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,325
of 13,511,647 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#8
of 3,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59
of 245,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#1
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,511,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 245,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.