The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users 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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Disrupted human–pathogen co-evolution: a model for disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Genetics, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fgene.2014.00290 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nuri Kodaman, Rafal S. Sobota, Robertino Mera, Barbara G. Schneider, Scott M. Williams |
| Abstract |
A major goal in infectious disease research is to identify the human and pathogenic genetic variants that explain differences in microbial pathogenesis. However, neither pathogenic strain nor human genetic variation in isolation has proven adequate to explain the heterogeneity of disease pathology. We suggest that disrupted co-evolution between a pathogen and its human host can explain variation in disease outcomes, and that genome-by-genome interactions should therefore be incorporated into genetic models of disease caused by infectious agents. Genetic epidemiological studies that fail to take both the pathogen and host into account can lead to false and misleading conclusions about disease etiology. We discuss our model in the context of three pathogens, Helicobacter pylori, Mycobacterium tuberculosis and human papillomavirus, and generalize the conditions under which it may be applicable. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 78% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 15 | 65% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 123 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 22% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 10 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 27 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 10 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,694,663
of 26,374,136 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#334
of 13,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,564
of 248,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#4
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,374,136 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,900 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 248,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.