↓ Skip to main content

Clarification of Taxonomic Status within the Pseudomonas syringae Species Group Based on a Phylogenomic Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Clarification of Taxonomic Status within the Pseudomonas syringae Species Group Based on a Phylogenomic Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02422
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margarita Gomila, Antonio Busquets, Magdalena Mulet, Elena García-Valdés, Jorge Lalucat

Abstract

The Pseudomonas syringae phylogenetic group comprises 15 recognized bacterial species and more than 60 pathovars. The classification and identification of strains is relevant for practical reasons but also for understanding the epidemiology and ecology of this group of plant pathogenic bacteria. Genome-based taxonomic analyses have been introduced recently to clarify the taxonomy of the whole genus. A set of 139 draft and complete genome sequences of strains belonging to all species of the P. syringae group available in public databases were analyzed, together with the genomes of closely related species used as outgroups. Comparative genomics based on the genome sequences of the species type strains in the group allowed the delineation of phylogenomic species and demonstrated that a high proportion of strains included in the study are misclassified. Furthermore, representatives of at least 7 putative novel species were detected. It was also confirmed that P. ficuserectae, P. meliae, and P. savastanoi are later synonyms of P. amygdali and that "P. coronafaciens" should be revived as a nomenspecies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 19%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 <1%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 35 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,000,138
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#9,163
of 25,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,539
of 440,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#275
of 522 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,119 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 62% 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 440,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 522 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.