↓ Skip to main content

Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0198021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonia Gomar-Vercher, Aurea Simón-Soro, José María Montiel-Company, José Manuel Almerich-Silla, Alex Mira

Abstract

Epidemiological studies use saliva on a regular basis as a non-invasive and easy-to-take sample, which is assumed to be a microbial representative of the oral cavity ecosystem. However, comparative studies between different kinds of saliva samples normally used in microbial studies are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare oral microbiota composition between two different saliva samples collected simultaneously: non-stimulated saliva with paper points and stimulated saliva collected after chewing paraffin gum. DNA was extracted from saliva samples of ten individuals, then analyzed by 16S rRNA pyrosequencing to describe bacterial diversity. The results demonstrate significant differences between the microbiota of these two kinds of saliva. Stimulated saliva was found to contain an estimated number of species over three times higher than unstimulated saliva. In addition, bacterial composition at the class and genus level was radically different between both types of samples. When compared to other oral niches, both types of saliva showed some similarity to tongue and buccal mucosa, but they do not correlate at all with the bacterial composition described in supra- or sub-gingival dental plaque, questioning their use in etiological and epidemiological studies of oral diseases of microbial origin.

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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 28 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,976,205
of 13,028,155 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#29,570
of 140,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,890
of 271,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#640
of 2,272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,028,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 140,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. 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 271,313 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.