↓ Skip to main content

A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) and humans (Homo sapiens)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, September 2012
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) and humans (Homo sapiens)
Published in
BMC Genomics, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-13-514
Pubmed ID
Authors

Falk Hildebrand, Tine Ebersbach, Henrik Bjørn Nielsen, Xiaoping Li, Si Brask Sonne, Marcelo Bertalan, Peter Dimitrov, Lise Madsen, Junjie Qin, Jun Wang, Jeroen Raes, Karsten Kristiansen, Tine Rask Licht

Abstract

Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) is an important model for human intestinal research. We have characterized the faecal microbiota of 60 guinea pigs using Illumina shotgun metagenomics, and used this data to compile a gene catalogue of its prevalent microbiota. Subsequently, we compared the guinea pig microbiome to existing human gut metagenome data from the MetaHIT project.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 143 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 19 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 65 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 4%
Chemistry 6 4%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 24 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 December 2021.
All research outputs
#4,500,100
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,875
of 10,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,640
of 172,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#24
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,628 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 172,200 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.