↓ Skip to main content

Classification and Taxonomy of Vegetable Macergens

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, November 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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Classification and Taxonomy of Vegetable Macergens
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bukola R. Aremu, Olubukola O. Babalola

Abstract

Macergens are bacteria capable of releasing pectic enzymes (pectolytic bacteria). These enzymatic actions result in the separation of plant tissues leading to total plant destruction. This can be attributed to soft rot diseases in vegetables. These macergens primarily belong to the genus Erwinia and to a range of opportunistic pathogens namely: the Xanthomonas spp., Pseudomonas spp., Clostridium spp., Cytophaga spp., and Bacillus spp. They consist of taxa that displayed considerable heterogeneity and intermingled with members of other genera belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae. They have been classified based on phenotypic, chemotaxonomic and genotypic which obviously not necessary in the taxonomy of all bacterial genera for defining bacterial species and describing new ones These taxonomic markers have been used traditionally as a simple technique for identification of bacterial isolates. The most important fields of taxonomy are supposed to be based on clear, reliable and worldwide applicable criteria. Hence, this review clarifies the taxonomy of the macergens to the species level and revealed that their taxonomy is beyond complete. For discovery of additional species, further research with the use modern molecular methods like phylogenomics need to be done. This can precisely define classification of macergens resulting in occasional, but significant changes in previous taxonomic schemes of these macergens.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Engineering 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 28%
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 08 December 2015.
All research outputs
#13,960,063
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#11,420
of 24,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,291
of 387,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#200
of 434 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 387,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 434 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 50% of its contemporaries.