↓ Skip to main content

Microbial growth and physiology: a call for better craftsmanship

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 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
Microbial growth and physiology: a call for better craftsmanship
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Egli

Abstract

Virtually every microbiological experiment starts with the cultivation of microbes. Consequently, as originally pointed out by Monod (1949), handling microbial cultures is a fundamental methodology of microbiology and mastering different cultivation techniques should be part of every microbiologist's craftsmanship. This is particularly important for research in microbial physiology, as the composition and behavior of microbes is strongly dependent on their growth environment. It has been pointed out repeatedly by eminent microbiologists that we should give more attention to the media and culturing conditions. However, this is obviously not adhered to with sufficient rigor as mistakes in basic cultivation principles are frequently found in the published research literature. The most frequent mistakes are the use of inappropriate growth media and little or no control of the specific growth rate, and some examples will be discussed here in detail. Therefore, this is a call for better microbiological craftsmanship when cultivating microbial cultures for physiological experiments. This call is not only addressed to researchers but it is probably even more important for the teaching of our discipline.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Unknown 347 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 20%
Student > Bachelor 53 15%
Student > Master 41 11%
Researcher 38 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 4%
Other 48 13%
Unknown 91 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 84 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 62 17%
Engineering 22 6%
Environmental Science 19 5%
Chemical Engineering 17 5%
Other 49 14%
Unknown 106 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 April 2023.
All research outputs
#14,152,800
of 24,666,614 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#10,299
of 28,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,012
of 269,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#135
of 353 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,666,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 269,204 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 353 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 60% of its contemporaries.