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 |
Unraveling the Differences between Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Probiotics in Modulating Protective Immunity to Enteric Infections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in immunology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00334 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sukumar Kandasamy, Anastasia N. Vlasova, David D. Fischer, Kuldeep S. Chattha, Lulu Shao, Anand Kumar, Stephanie N. Langel, Abdul Rauf, Huang-Chi Huang, Gireesh Rajashekara, Linda J. Saif |
| Abstract |
The role of intestinal microbiota and probiotics in prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, including diarrheal diseases in children and animal models, is increasingly recognized. Intestinal commensals play a major role in development of the immune system in neonates and in shaping host immune responses to pathogens. Lactobacilli spp. and Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 are two probiotics that are commonly used in children to treat various medical conditions including human rotavirus diarrhea and inflammatory bowel disease. Although the health benefits of probiotics have been confirmed, the specific effects of these established Gram-positive (G+) and Gram-negative (G-) probiotics in modulating immunity against pathogens and disease are largely undefined. In this review, we discuss the differences between G+ and G- probiotics/commensals in modulating the dynamics of selected infectious diseases and host immunity. These probiotics modulate the pathogenesis of infectious diseases and protective immunity against pathogens in a species- and strain-specific manner. Collectively, it appears that the selected G- probiotic is more effective than the various tested G+ probiotics in enhancing protective immunity against rotavirus in the gnotobiotic piglet model. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 2 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 15 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 33 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,014,381
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#1,906
of 31,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,654
of 323,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#27
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 323,059 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 432 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 93% of its contemporaries.