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 |
Effects of human blood red cells on the haemolytic capability of clinical isolates of Candida tropicalis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biomedical Science, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12929-015-0120-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcia Cristina Furlaneto, Daniel Favero, Emanuele Julio Galvão França, Luciana Furlaneto-Maia |
| Abstract |
Candida tropicalis is an increasingly important human pathogen associated with high mortality rates; however, little is known regarding the virulence properties of C. tropicalis, particularly the production of haemolytic factor. Although Candida spp may acquire iron from human blood red cells (RBCs) by producing a haemolytic factor that promotes cell lyses, at present there are no data regarding the effect of RBCs on the production of haemolytic molecules. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the role of human red blood cells on the production haemolytic factor by C. tropicalis; in addition, the transcription levels of a putative haemolysin-like protein gene (HLPt) were also analysed. C. tropicalis isolates produced a haemolytic factor following growth in either the absence or presence of RBCs; however, distinct levels of haemolysis were observed, with 60% of the isolates exhibiting a significant increase in the production of haemolytic factor when grown in the presence of human RBCs. All isolates in which the putative HLPt gene was up-regulated in presence of human RBCs, ranging from 1.044 to 6.965-fold, also exhibited higher haemolytic activity following growth in the presence of RBCs compared to that observed in the absence of RBCs. We propose that human RBCs may induce changes in the phenotypic expression of haemolytic factor and in transcriptional levels of the putative C. tropicalis HLPt gene in an isolate-dependent fashion. |
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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
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 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#871
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,913
of 367,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 367,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.