↓ Skip to main content

Do Bacterial “Virulence Factors” Always Increase Virulence? A Meta-Analysis of Pyoverdine Production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa As a Test Case

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Do Bacterial “Virulence Factors” Always Increase Virulence? A Meta-Analysis of Pyoverdine Production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa As a Test Case
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01952
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisa T. Granato, Freya Harrison, Rolf Kümmerli, Adin Ross-Gillespie

Abstract

Bacterial traits that contribute to disease are termed "virulence factors" and there is much interest in therapeutic approaches that disrupt such traits. What remains less clear is whether a virulence factor identified as such in a particular context is also important in infections involving different host and pathogen types. Here, we address this question using a meta-analytic approach. We statistically analyzed the infection outcomes of 81 experiments associated with one well-studied virulence factor-pyoverdine, an iron-scavenging compound secreted by the opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa. We found that this factor is consistently involved with virulence across different infection contexts. However, the magnitude of the effect of pyoverdine on virulence varied considerably. Moreover, its effect on virulence was relatively minor in many cases, suggesting that pyoverdine is not indispensable in infections. Our works supports theoretical models from ecology predicting that disease severity is multifactorial and context dependent, a fact that might complicate our efforts to identify the most important virulence factors. More generally, our study highlights how comparative approaches can be used to quantify the magnitude and general importance of virulence factors, key knowledge informing future anti-virulence treatment strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Master 10 9%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 15 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,596,691
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,037
of 29,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,187
of 420,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#46
of 380 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,374 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 420,051 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 380 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.