↓ Skip to main content

Replicating phages in the epidermal mucosa of the eel (Anguilla anguilla)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Replicating phages in the epidermal mucosa of the eel (Anguilla anguilla)
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miguel Carda-Diéguez, Carolina Megumi Mizuno, Rohit Ghai, Francisco Rodriguez-Valera, Carmen Amaro

Abstract

In this work, we used the eel (Anguilla anguilla) as an animal model to test the hypothesis of Barr et al. (2013a,b) about the putative role of the epidermal mucosa as a phage enrichment layer. To this end, we analyzed the microbial content of the skin mucus of wild and farmed eels by using a metagenomic approach. We found a great abundance of replicating phage genomes (concatemers) in all the samples. They were assembled in four complete genomes of three Myovirus and one Podovirus. We also found evidences that ΦKZ and Podovirus phages could be part of the resident microbiota associated to the eel mucosal surface and persist on them over the time. Moreover, the viral abundance estimated by epiflorescent counts and by metagenomic recruitment from eel mucosa was higher than that of the surrounding water. Taken together, our results support the hypothesis that claims a possible role of phages in the animal mucus as agents controlling bacterial populations, including pathogenic species, providing a kind of innate immunity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Greece 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 57 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Unspecified 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 41%
Unspecified 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 11%
Environmental Science 5 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#4,623,030
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#4,567
of 25,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,134
of 357,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#46
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 357,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.