↓ Skip to main content

To Understand Coral Disease, Look at Coral Cells

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
To Understand Coral Disease, Look at Coral Cells
Published in
EcoHealth, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10393-014-0931-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thierry Work, Carol Meteyer

Abstract

Diseases threaten corals globally, but 40 years on their causes remain mostly unknown. We hypothesize that inconsistent application of a complete diagnostic approach to coral disease has contributed to this slow progress. We quantified methods used to investigate coral disease in 492 papers published between 1965 and 2013. Field surveys were used in 65% of the papers, followed by biodetection (43%), laboratory trials (20%), microscopic pathology (21%), and field trials (9%). Of the microscopic pathology efforts, 57% involved standard histopathology at the light microscopic level (12% of the total investigations), with the remainder dedicated to electron or fluorescence microscopy. Most (74%) biodetection efforts focused on culture or molecular characterization of bacteria or fungi from corals. Molecular and immunological tools have been used to incriminate infectious agents (mainly bacteria) as the cause of coral diseases without relating the agent to specific changes in cell and tissue pathology. Of 19 papers that declared an infectious agent as a cause of disease in corals, only one (5%) used microscopic pathology, and none fulfilled all of the criteria required to satisfy Koch's postulates as applied to animal diseases currently. Vertebrate diseases of skin and mucosal surfaces present challenges similar to corals when trying to identify a pathogen from a vast array of environmental microbes, and diagnostic approaches regularly used in these cases might provide a model for investigating coral diseases. We hope this review will encourage specialists of disease in domestic animals, wildlife, fish, shellfish, and humans to contribute to the emerging field of coral disease.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Hong Kong 1 1%
France 1 1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 85 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 24%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 48%
Environmental Science 17 18%
Unspecified 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 5%
Other 9 10%

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 16 April 2014.
All research outputs
#10,050,221
of 12,562,772 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#413
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,087
of 155,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,562,772 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 491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 155,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.