↓ Skip to main content

High-Throughput Isolation of Giant Viruses in Liquid Medium Using Automated Flow Cytometry and Fluorescence Staining

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
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

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
High-Throughput Isolation of Giant Viruses in Liquid Medium Using Automated Flow Cytometry and Fluorescence Staining
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacques Y. B. Khalil, Stephane Robert, Dorine G. Reteno, Julien Andreani, Didier Raoult, Bernard La Scola

Abstract

The isolation of giant viruses using amoeba co-culture is tedious and fastidious. Recently, the procedure was successfully associated with a method that detects amoebal lysis on agar plates. However, the procedure remains time-consuming and is limited to protozoa growing on agar. We present here advances for the isolation of giant viruses. A high-throughput automated method based on flow cytometry and fluorescent staining was used to detect the presence of giant viruses in liquid medium. Development was carried out with the Acanthamoeba polyphaga strain widely used in past and current co-culture experiments. The proof of concept was validated with virus suspensions: artificially contaminated samples but also environmental samples from which viruses were previously isolated. After validating the technique, and fortuitously isolating a new Mimivirus, we automated the technique on 96-well plates and tested it on clinical and environmental samples using other protozoa. This allowed us to detect more than 10 strains of previously known species of giant viruses and seven new strains of a new virus lineage. This automated high-throughput method demonstrated significant time saving, and higher sensitivity than older techniques. It thus creates the means to isolate giant viruses at high speed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 25%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 8%
Engineering 3 5%
Chemistry 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 18 29%
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 30 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,834,028
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#13,823
of 24,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,869
of 396,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#282
of 490 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 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 24,844 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 396,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 490 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.