↓ Skip to main content

Use of Genomic Tools to Improve Cattle Health in the Context of Infectious Diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, March 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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Use of Genomic Tools to Improve Cattle Health in the Context of Infectious Diseases
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2016.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikolaj M. Raszek, Le L. Guan, Graham S. Plastow

Abstract

Although infectious diseases impose a heavy economic burden on the cattle industry, the etiology of many disorders that affect livestock is not fully elucidated, and effective countermeasures are often lacking. The main tools available until now have been vaccines, antibiotics and antiparasitic drugs. Although these have been very successful in some cases, the appearance of parasite and microbial resistance to these treatments is a cause of concern. Next-generation sequencing provides important opportunities to tackle problems associated with pathogenic illnesses. This review describes the rapid gains achieved to track disease progression, identify the pathogens involved, and map pathogen interactions with the host. Use of novel genomic tools subsequently aids in treatment development, as well as successful creation of breeding programs aimed toward less susceptible livestock. These may be important tools for mitigating the long term effects of combating infection and helping reduce the reliance on antibiotic treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 13 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 36 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,519,809
of 24,047,183 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#607
of 12,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,239
of 303,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#6
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,047,183 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 12,910 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 303,395 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 90% of its contemporaries.