↓ Skip to main content

Rapid methods for the detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens: principles, applications, advantages and limitations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
1508 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
Rapid methods for the detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens: principles, applications, advantages and limitations
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00770
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodi Woan-Fei Law, Nurul-Syakima Ab Mutalib, Kok-Gan Chan, Learn-Han Lee

Abstract

The incidence of foodborne diseases has increased over the years and resulted in major public health problem globally. Foodborne pathogens can be found in various foods and it is important to detect foodborne pathogens to provide safe food supply and to prevent foodborne diseases. The conventional methods used to detect foodborne pathogen are time consuming and laborious. Hence, a variety of methods have been developed for rapid detection of foodborne pathogens as it is required in many food analyses. Rapid detection methods can be categorized into nucleic acid-based, biosensor-based and immunological-based methods. This review emphasizes on the principles and application of recent rapid methods for the detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens. Detection methods included are simple polymerase chain reaction (PCR), multiplex PCR, real-time PCR, nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and oligonucleotide DNA microarray which classified as nucleic acid-based methods; optical, electrochemical and mass-based biosensors which classified as biosensor-based methods; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and lateral flow immunoassay which classified as immunological-based methods. In general, rapid detection methods are generally time-efficient, sensitive, specific and labor-saving. The developments of rapid detection methods are vital in prevention and treatment of foodborne diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 1,508 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Singapore 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 1491 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 235 16%
Student > Master 202 13%
Student > Bachelor 191 13%
Researcher 173 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 72 5%
Other 193 13%
Unknown 442 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 306 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 199 13%
Chemistry 108 7%
Engineering 100 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 87 6%
Other 206 14%
Unknown 502 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,445,259
of 23,504,445 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#1,953
of 25,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,754
of 355,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#25
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,445 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,919 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 355,933 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.