↓ Skip to main content

Bacterial Exchange via Nanotubes: Lessons Learned from the History of Molecular Biology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2011
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Bacterial Exchange via Nanotubes: Lessons Learned from the History of Molecular Biology
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas A. Ficht

Abstract

DNA transfer between bacteria has a long and storied history. Starting shortly after the discovery by Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty that DNA was the genetic material, the exchange of DNA between bacteria confirmed that DNA transfer could stably change the phenotypic behavior of organisms. Continued effort along these lines led to the discovery of conjugation systems, bacteriophage transduction, bacterial genome mapping, and to some represents the birth of molecular biology. Recent findings by Dubey and Ben-Yehuda (2011) expand on these early results by suggesting that exchange between bacteria may occur continuously under certain growth conditions via nanotubes. These nanotubes have a structure similar to cell membranes and are sensitive to mild detergent treatment. Transfer of protein and plasmid DNA was demonstrated directly between neighboring and distant bacteria of the same and different genera. Transfer of RNA cannot be ruled out and the transfer of chromosomal DNA was not addressed. This work may reveal an important mechanism behind the spread of antibiotic resistance, however, much work remains to be done in order to confirm or refute the role of this mechanism in the dangerous spread of antibiotic resistance within the prokaryotic biosphere. The work of early molecular biology pioneers can be used as inspiration, if not as a direct template to guide future experimental confirmation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 47 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 15%
Engineering 3 6%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 6 12%
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 03 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,979,724
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#3,878
of 24,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,453
of 180,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#24
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 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 24,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 180,686 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.