↓ Skip to main content

NONLETHAL SCREENING OF BAT-WING SKIN WITH THE USE OF ULTRAVIOLET FLUORESCENCE TO DETECT LESIONS INDICATIVE OF WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Wildlife Diseases, July 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 (#5 of 636)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 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
NONLETHAL SCREENING OF BAT-WING SKIN WITH THE USE OF ULTRAVIOLET FLUORESCENCE TO DETECT LESIONS INDICATIVE OF WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME
Published in
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, July 2014
DOI 10.7589/2014-03-058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory G. Turner, Carol Uphoff Meteyer, Hazel Barton, John F. Gumbs, DeeAnn M. Reeder, Barrie Overton, Hana Bandouchova, Tomáš Bartonička, Natália Martínková, Jiri Pikula, Jan Zukal, David S. Blehert

Abstract

Abstract Definitive diagnosis of the bat disease white-nose syndrome (WNS) requires histologic analysis to identify the cutaneous erosions caused by the fungal pathogen Pseudogymnoascus [formerly Geomyces] destructans (Pd). Gross visual inspection does not distinguish bats with or without WNS, and no nonlethal, on-site, preliminary screening methods are available for WNS in bats. We demonstrate that long-wave ultraviolet (UV) light (wavelength 368-385 nm) elicits a distinct orange-yellow fluorescence in bat-wing membranes (skin) that corresponds directly with the fungal cupping erosions in histologic sections of skin that are the current gold standard for diagnosis of WNS. Between March 2009 and April 2012, wing membranes from 168 North American bat carcasses submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center were examined with the use of both UV light and histology. Comparison of these techniques showed that 98.8% of the bats with foci of orange-yellow wing fluorescence (n = 80) were WNS-positive based on histologic diagnosis; bat wings that did not fluoresce under UV light (n = 88) were all histologically negative for WNS lesions. Punch biopsy samples as small as 3 mm taken from areas of wing with UV fluorescence were effective for identifying lesions diagnostic for WNS by histopathology. In a nonlethal biopsy-based study of 62 bats sampled (4-mm diameter) in hibernacula of the Czech Republic during 2012, 95.5% of fluorescent (n = 22) and 100% of nonfluorescent (n = 40) wing samples were confirmed by histopathology to be WNS positive and negative, respectively. This evidence supports use of long-wave UV light as a nonlethal and field-applicable method to screen bats for lesions indicative of WNS. Further, UV fluorescence can be used to guide targeted, nonlethal biopsy sampling for follow-up molecular testing, fungal culture analysis, and histologic confirmation of WNS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Unknown 90 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 23%
Other 19 20%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 60%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Environmental Science 8 9%
Unspecified 8 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 8%
Other 6 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#168,804
of 8,938,318 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#5
of 636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,023
of 177,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,938,318 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 636 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 177,396 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.