↓ Skip to main content

Marine Group II Archaea, potentially important players in the global ocean carbon cycle

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, October 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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Marine Group II Archaea, potentially important players in the global ocean carbon cycle
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chuanlun L. Zhang, Wei Xie, Ana-Belen Martin-Cuadrado, Francisco Rodriguez-Valera

Abstract

Marine Group (MG) I (currently known as Thaumarchaeota) and MG II Archaea were first reported over two decades ago. While significant progress has been made on MG I microbiology and ecology, the progress on MG II has been noticeably slower. The common understanding is that while MG I mainly function as chemolithoautotrophs and occur predominantly in the deep ocean, MG II reside mostly in the photic zone and live heterotrophically. Studies to date have shown that MG II are abundant in the marine aquatic environment and display great seasonal and spatial variation and phylogenetic diversity. They also show unique patterns of organic carbon degradation and their energy requirements may be augmented by light in the photic zone. However, no pure culture of MG II has been obtained and thus their precise ecological role remains elusive.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 167 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 29%
Researcher 37 22%
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 21 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 16%
Environmental Science 26 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 23 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 6%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 27 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,192,734
of 23,572,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,899
of 26,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,849
of 280,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#50
of 439 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,572,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,083 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 88% 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 280,189 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 439 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.