↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenetic Lineages of Francisella tularensis in Animals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Phylogenetic Lineages of Francisella tularensis in Animals
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00258
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paola Pilo

Abstract

Tularemia is a zoonotic disease caused by the facultative intracellular bacterium Francisella tularensis. This microorganism can infect a plethora of animal species and its ecology is particularly complex. Much research was performed to understand its biology but many questions are still open, especially concerning the life cycle of this bacterium in the environment related to physical and biological parameters. Numerous animals are major hosts of F. tularensis but precise reservoir species are not yet well defined. Moreover, the exact range of species susceptible to tularemia is not clear and is complicated by the differences in virulence and ecology observed among the subspecies of F. tularensis. Indeed, different life cycles in nature, including the animal species concerned, were previously described for F. tularensis subsp. tularensis and F. tularensis subsp. holarctica. Recently, molecular techniques showing adequate discrimination between strains were developed, leading to the possibility to investigate links between phylogenetic lineages and infection in animals. New perspectives in research are now possible thanks to the information available and the simplicity of the molecular procedures. Current studies are unfolding the evolution of F. tularensis and these developments will lead to the elucidation of geographical and ecological differences observed by veterinarians, microbiologists and conservation biologists. However, systematic, coordinated collection of data and extensive sampling are important to efficiently assemble the findings of future research.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 9%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,986,372
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#4,209
of 6,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,084
of 329,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#82
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 329,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.