↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Gut Microbiota of 59 Neotropical Bird Species

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, December 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
37 X users

Readers on

mendeley
257 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
Comparative Gut Microbiota of 59 Neotropical Bird Species
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01403
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah M. Hird, César Sánchez, Bryan C. Carstens, Robb T. Brumfield

Abstract

The gut microbiota of vertebrates are essential to host health. Most non-model vertebrates, however, lack even a basic description of natural gut microbiota biodiversity. Here, we sampled 116 intestines from 59 Neotropical bird species and used the V6 region of the 16S rRNA molecule as a microbial fingerprint (average coverage per bird ~80,000 reads). A core microbiota of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria was identified, as well as several gut-associated genera. We tested 18 categorical variables associated with each bird for significant correlation to the gut microbiota; host taxonomic categories were most frequently significant and explained the most variation. Ecological variables (e.g., diet, foraging stratum) were also frequently significant but explained less variation. Little evidence was found for a significant influence of geographic space. Finally, we suggest that microbial sampling during field collection of organisms would propel biological understanding of evolutionary history and ecological significance of host-associated microbiota.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 253 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 26%
Student > Master 48 19%
Researcher 32 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 35 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 107 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 12%
Environmental Science 24 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 4%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 51 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,485,187
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#894
of 29,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,663
of 396,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#18
of 404 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,486 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 96% 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 396,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 404 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 95% of its contemporaries.