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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of starvation on survival and virulence expression of Aeromonas hydrophila from different sources
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Microbiology, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00203-014-1074-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Casabianca, Chiara Orlandi, Federica Barbieri, Luigia Sabatini, Andrea Di Cesare, Davide Sisti, Sonia Pasquaroli, Mauro Magnani, Barbara Citterio |
| Abstract |
Aeromonas hydrophila is an aquatic bacterium responsible for several human illnesses. The aim of this work was to investigate the survival ability and virulence expression of two strains from different sources (fish, strain 87 and surface water, strain LS) maintained in a seawater microcosm. The strains were analyzed for the total and viable bacterial counts, adhesion ability to Hep-2 cells and aerA gene expression by qPCR throughout the experiment (35 days). Both strains reached a putative VBNC state and lost adhesive properties but exhibited a different behavior in the expression of aerA. This could be due to the different origin of the two strains; the former adapted to a habitat rich of nutrient and the latter already used to survive in a more hostile environment. Moreover, our results indicate that the quantitative determination of aerA mRNA can be a useful indicator of virulence expression under stress conditions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 14% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
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 02 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,393,912
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Microbiology
#2,125
of 2,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,586
of 352,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Microbiology
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 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 2,770 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 352,876 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 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.