↓ Skip to main content

One step preparation and electrochemical analysis of IQS, a cell–cell communication signal in the nosocomial pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Overview of attention for article published in Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
One step preparation and electrochemical analysis of IQS, a cell–cell communication signal in the nosocomial pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Published in
Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, August 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.bmcl.2014.08.023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fengjun Shang, Eoin Ó Muimhneacháin, F. Jerry Reen, Alyah Buzid, Fergal O’Gara, John H.T. Luong, Jeremy D. Glennon, Gerard P. McGlacken

Abstract

Pseudomonas aeruginosa uses a hierarchical cell-cell communication system consisting of a number of regulatory elements to coordinate the expression of bacterial virulence genes. Sensitive detection of quorum sensing (QS) molecules has the potential for early identification of P. aeruginosa facilitating early medical intervention. A recently isolated cell-cell communication molecule, a thiazole termed IQS, can bypass the las QS system of P. aeruginosa under times of stress, activating a subset of QS-controlled genes. This compound offers a new target for pathogen detection and has been prepared in a one step protocol. A simple electrochemical strategy was employed for its sensitive detection using boron-doped diamond and glassy carbon electrodes by cyclic voltammetry and amperometry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Chemistry 7 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 September 2014.
All research outputs
#16,723,093
of 25,383,225 outputs
Outputs from Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters
#12,104
of 13,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,159
of 239,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters
#94
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,781 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 239,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.