↓ Skip to main content

Probiotic isolates from unconventional sources: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Science and Technology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
Probiotic isolates from unconventional sources: a review
Published in
Journal of Animal Science and Technology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40781-016-0108-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pairat Sornplang, Sudthidol Piyadeatsoontorn

Abstract

The use of probiotics for human and animal health is continuously increasing. The probiotics used in humans commonly come from dairy foods, whereas the sources of probiotics used in animals are often the animals' own digestive tracts. Increasingly, probiotics from sources other than milk products are being selected for use in people who are lactose intolerant. These sources are non-dairy fermented foods and beverages, non-dairy and non-fermented foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, feces of breast-fed infants and human breast milk. The probiotics that are used in both humans and animals are selected in stages; after the initial isolation of the appropriate culture medium, the probiotics must meet important qualifications, including being non-pathogenic acid and bile-tolerant strains that possess the ability to act against pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract and the safety-enhancing property of not being able to transfer any antibiotic resistance genes to other bacteria. The final stages of selection involve the accurate identification of the probiotic species.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 190 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 22%
Student > Master 37 19%
Student > Bachelor 31 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Researcher 13 7%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 34 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 11%
Engineering 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 41 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 May 2020.
All research outputs
#9,340,786
of 16,241,596 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Science and Technology
#19
of 74 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,977
of 267,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Science and Technology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,241,596 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 267,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.