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 |
Genome-scale data suggest reclassifications in the Leisingera-Phaeobacter cluster including proposals for Sedimentitalea gen. nov. and Pseudophaeobacter gen. nov.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00416 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Breider, Carmen Scheuner, Peter Schumann, Anne Fiebig, Jörn Petersen, Silke Pradella, Hans-Peter Klenk, Thorsten Brinkhoff, Markus Göker |
| Abstract |
Earlier phylogenetic analyses of the marine Rhodobacteraceae (class Alphaproteobacteria) genera Leisingera and Phaeobacter indicated that neither genus might be monophyletic. We here used phylogenetic reconstruction from genome-scale data, MALDI-TOF mass-spectrometry analysis and a re-assessment of the phenotypic data from the literature to settle this matter, aiming at a reclassification of the two genera. Neither Phaeobacter nor Leisingera formed a clade in any of the phylogenetic analyses conducted. Rather, smaller monophyletic assemblages emerged, which were phenotypically more homogeneous, too. We thus propose the reclassification of Leisingera nanhaiensis as the type species of a new genus as Sedimentitalea nanhaiensis gen. nov., comb. nov., the reclassification of Phaeobacter arcticus and Phaeobacter leonis as Pseudophaeobacter arcticus gen. nov., comb. nov. and Pseudophaeobacter leonis comb. nov., and the reclassification of Phaeobacter aquaemixtae, Phaeobacter caeruleus, and Phaeobacter daeponensis as Leisingera aquaemixtae comb. nov., Leisingera caerulea comb. nov., and Leisingera daeponensis comb. nov. The genera Phaeobacter and Leisingera are accordingly emended. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Denmark | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 61 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 21% |
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 18% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 August 2022.
All research outputs
#6,267,772
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#6,107
of 25,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,554
of 231,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#46
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 231,791 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.