↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Genomics of Gardnerella vaginalis Strains Reveals Substantial Differences in Metabolic and Virulence Potential

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 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
Comparative Genomics of Gardnerella vaginalis Strains Reveals Substantial Differences in Metabolic and Virulence Potential
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0012411
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carl J. Yeoman, Suleyman Yildirim, Susan M. Thomas, A. Scott Durkin, Manolito Torralba, Granger Sutton, Christian J. Buhay, Yan Ding, Shannon P. Dugan-Rocha, Donna M. Muzny, Xiang Qin, Richard A. Gibbs, Steven R. Leigh, Rebecca Stumpf, Bryan A. White, Sarah K. Highlander, Karen E. Nelson, Brenda A. Wilson

Abstract

Gardnerella vaginalis is described as a common vaginal bacterial species whose presence correlates strongly with bacterial vaginosis (BV). Here we report the genome sequencing and comparative analyses of three strains of G. vaginalis. Strains 317 (ATCC 14019) and 594 (ATCC 14018) were isolated from the vaginal tracts of women with symptomatic BV, while Strain 409-05 was isolated from a healthy, asymptomatic individual with a Nugent score of 9.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 200 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 20%
Researcher 37 18%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 34 16%
Unknown 31 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 20 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 8%
Engineering 7 3%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 39 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,168,177
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#100,295
of 224,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,170
of 104,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#420
of 845 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 104,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 845 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.