↓ Skip to main content

Two different evolutionary lines of filamentous phages in Ralstonia solanacearum: their effects on bacterial virulence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 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
Two different evolutionary lines of filamentous phages in Ralstonia solanacearum: their effects on bacterial virulence
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00217
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed Askora, Takashi Yamada

Abstract

The integration and excision of various filamentous phage genomes into and out of their host chromosomes occurs by site-specific recombination. The mechanisms proposed for these events include reactions mediated by phage-encoded recombinases and host recombination systems. Site-specific integration of filamentous phages plays a vital role in a variety of biological functions of the host, such as phase variation of certain pathogenic bacterial virulence factors. The importance of these filamentous phages in bacterial evolution is rapidly increasing with the discovery of new phages that are involved in pathogenicity. Studies of the diversity of two different filamentous phages infecting the phytopathogen Ralstonia solanacearum provide us with novel insights into the dynamics of phage genomes, biological roles of prophages, and the regulation and importance of phage-host interactions.

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 %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 32%
Student > Master 10 21%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 34%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 19%
Chemistry 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 3 6%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 June 2015.
All research outputs
#4,052,174
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,245
of 11,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,076
of 264,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#18
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,767 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 264,504 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.