↓ Skip to main content

Survey on the Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing for Infectious Diseases Surveillance: Rapid Expansion of European National Capacities, 2015–2016

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Survey on the Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing for Infectious Diseases Surveillance: Rapid Expansion of European National Capacities, 2015–2016
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00347
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joana Revez, Laura Espinosa, Barbara Albiger, Katrin Claire Leitmeyer, Marc Jean Struelens, ECDC National Microbiology Focal Points and Experts Group, Ákos Tóth, Algirdas Griškevičius, Alkiviadis Vatopoulos, Anna Skoczynska, Annalisa Pantosti, Bruno Coignard, Cyril Klement, Despo Pieridou, Dominique Caugant, Eleanor McNamara, Franz Allerberger, Gabriel Ionescu, Graziella Zahra, Guido Werner, Iva Christova, Joël Mossong, Jonathan Green, Jorge Machado, Julio Vazquez Moreno, Karl Kristinsson, Mattias Mild, Metka Paragi, Nico Meessen, Oksana Savicka, Pavla Křížová, Rita Peetso, Saara Salmenlinna, Steven Van Gucht, Thea K Fischer, Vera Katalinić-Janković

Abstract

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has become an essential tool for public health surveillance and molecular epidemiology of infectious diseases and antimicrobial drug resistance. It provides precise geographical delineation of spread and enables incidence monitoring of pathogens at genotype level. Coupled with epidemiological and environmental investigations, it delivers ultimate resolution for tracing sources of epidemic infections. To ascertain the level of implementation of WGS-based typing for national public health surveillance and investigation of prioritized diseases in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA), two surveys were conducted in 2015 and 2016. The surveys were designed to determine the national public health reference laboratories' access to WGS and operational WGS-based typing capacity for national surveillance of selected foodborne pathogens, antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, and vaccine-preventable diseases identified as priorities for European genomic surveillance. Twenty-eight and twenty-nine out of the 30 EU/EEA countries participated in the survey in 2015 and 2016, respectively. National public health reference laboratories in 22 and 25 countries had access to WGS-based typing for public health applications in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Reported reasons for limited or no access were lack of funding, staff, and expertise. Illumina technology was the most frequently used followed by Ion Torrent technology. The access to bioinformatics expertise and competence for routine WGS data analysis was limited. By mid-2016, half of the EU/EEA countries were using WGS analysis either as first- or second-line typing method for surveillance of the pathogens and antibiotic resistance issues identified as EU priorities. The sampling frame as well as bioinformatics analysis varied by pathogen/resistance issue and country. Core genome multilocus allelic profiling, also called cgMLST, was the most frequently used annotation approach for typing bacterial genomes suggesting potential bioinformatics pipeline compatibility. Further capacity development for WGS-based typing is ongoing in many countries and upon consolidation and harmonization of methods should enable pan-EU data exchange for genomic surveillance in the medium-term subject to the development of suitable data management systems and appropriate agreements for data sharing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 13 10%
Other 8 6%
Professor 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 40 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 January 2018.
All research outputs
#8,636,901
of 25,770,491 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,602
of 14,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,214
of 448,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#44
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,770,491 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 448,609 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 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 51% of its contemporaries.