↓ Skip to main content

Whole-genome comparative analysis of virulence genes unveils similarities and differences between endophytes and other symbiotic bacteria

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Whole-genome comparative analysis of virulence genes unveils similarities and differences between endophytes and other symbiotic bacteria
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00419
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastiàn Lòpez-Fernàndez, Paolo Sonego, Marco Moretto, Michael Pancher, Kristof Engelen, Ilaria Pertot, Andrea Campisano

Abstract

Plant pathogens and endophytes co-exist and often interact with the host plant and within its microbial community. The outcome of these interactions may lead to healthy plants through beneficial interactions, or to disease through the inducible production of molecules known as virulence factors. Unravelling the role of virulence in endophytes may crucially improve our understanding of host-associated microbial communities and their correlation with host health. Virulence is the outcome of a complex network of interactions, and drawing the line between pathogens and endophytes has proven to be conflictive, as strain-level differences in niche overlapping, ecological interactions, state of the host's immune system and environmental factors are seldom taken into account. Defining genomic differences between endophytes and plant pathogens is decisive for understanding the boundaries between these two groups. Here we describe the major differences at the genomic level between seven grapevine endophytic test bacteria, and 12 reference strains. We describe the virulence factors detected in the genomes of the test group, as compared to endophytic and non-endophytic references, to better understand the distribution of these traits in endophytic genomes. To do this, we adopted a comparative whole-genome approach, encompassing BLAST-based searches through the GUI-based tools Mauve and BRIG as well as calculating the core and accessory genomes of three genera of enterobacteria. We outline divergences in metabolic pathways of these endophytes and reference strains, with the aid of the online platform RAST. We present a summary of the major differences that help in the drawing of the boundaries between harmless and harmful bacteria, in the spirit of contributing to a microbiological definition of endophyte.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 21%
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 71 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Environmental Science 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 34 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 September 2015.
All research outputs
#4,428,411
of 24,255,619 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#4,344
of 27,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,229
of 270,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#55
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,255,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 270,742 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 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.