| Title |
Testing the Hypothesis of Biofilm as a Source for Soft Tissue and Cell-Like Structures Preserved in Dinosaur Bone
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0150238 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary Higby Schweitzer, Alison E. Moyer, Wenxia Zheng |
| Abstract |
Recovery of still-soft tissue structures, including blood vessels and osteocytes, from dinosaur bone after demineralization was reported in 2005 and in subsequent publications. Despite multiple lines of evidence supporting an endogenous source, it was proposed that these structures arose from contamination from biofilm-forming organisms. To test the hypothesis that soft tissue structures result from microbial invasion of the fossil bone, we used two different biofilm-forming microorganisms to inoculate modern bone fragments from which organic components had been removed. We show fundamental morphological, chemical and textural differences between the resultant biofilm structures and those derived from dinosaur bone. The data do not support the hypothesis that biofilm-forming microorganisms are the source of these structures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 22% |
| Japan | 3 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 70% |
| Scientists | 12 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 20 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 09 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,236,144
of 25,364,603 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#15,641
of 220,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,620
of 312,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#411
of 5,400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 312,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,400 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.