↓ Skip to main content

Friends or foes: can we make a distinction between beneficial and harmful strains of the Stenotrophomonas maltophilia complex?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Friends or foes: can we make a distinction between beneficial and harmful strains of the Stenotrophomonas maltophilia complex?
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriele Berg, Jose L. Martinez

Abstract

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is an emerging multi-drug-resistant global opportunistic pathogen of environmental, mainly plant-associated origin. It is also used as a biocontrol or stress protecting agent for crops in sustainable agricultural as well as in bioremediation strategies. In order to establish effective protocols to distinguish harmless from harmful strains, our discussion must take into consideration the current data available surrounding the ecology, evolution and pathogenicity of the species complex. The mutation rate was identified as one of several possible criteria for strain plasticity, but it is currently impossible to distinguish beneficial from harmful S. maltophilia strains. This may compromise the possibility of the release and application for environmental biotechnology of this bacterial species. The close relative S. rhizophila, which can be clearly differentiated from S. maltophilia, provides a harmless alternative for biotechnological applications without human health risks. This is mainly because it is unable to growth at the human body temperature, 37(∘)C due to the absence of heat shock genes and a potentially temperature-regulated suicide mechanism.

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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 20%
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 32 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,807,084
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#13,780
of 24,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,969
of 264,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#190
of 337 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 264,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 337 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.