↓ Skip to main content

Spatial Organization of the Gastrointestinal Microbiota in Urban Canada Geese

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Spatial Organization of the Gastrointestinal Microbiota in Urban Canada Geese
Published in
Scientific Reports, February 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-21892-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergei V. Drovetski, Michael O’Mahoney, Emma J. Ransome, Kenan O. Matterson, Haw Chuan Lim, R. Terry Chesser, Gary R. Graves

Abstract

Recent reviews identified the reliance on fecal or cloacal samples as a significant limitation hindering our understanding of the avian gastrointestinal (gut) microbiota and its function. We investigated the microbiota of the esophagus, duodenum, cecum, and colon of a wild urban population of Canada goose (Branta canadensis). From a population sample of 30 individuals, we sequenced the V4 region of the 16S SSU rRNA on an Illumina MiSeq and obtained 8,628,751 sequences with a median of 76,529 per sample. These sequences were assigned to 420 bacterial OTUs and a single archaeon. Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Bacteroidetes accounted for 90% of all sequences. Microbiotas from the four gut regions differed significantly in their richness, composition, and variability among individuals. Microbial communities of the esophagus were the most distinctive whereas those of the colon were the least distinctive, reflecting the physical downstream mixing of regional microbiotas. The downstream mixing of regional microbiotas was also responsible for the majority of observed co-occurrence patterns among microbial families. Our results indicate that fecal and cloacal samples inadequately represent the complex patterns of richness, composition, and variability of the gut microbiota and obscure patterns of co-occurrence of microbial lineages.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Unspecified 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 48%
Unspecified 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Other 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,586,471
of 13,044,924 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#13,320
of 61,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,929
of 268,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 61,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 268,564 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.