↓ Skip to main content

Abundance and Distribution of Enteric Bacteria and Viruses in Coastal and Estuarine Sediments—a Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 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
Abundance and Distribution of Enteric Bacteria and Viruses in Coastal and Estuarine Sediments—a Review
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01692
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis Hassard, Ceri L. Gwyther, Kata Farkas, Anthony Andrews, Vera Jones, Brian Cox, Howard Brett, Davey L. Jones, James E. McDonald, Shelagh K. Malham

Abstract

The long term survival of fecal indicator organisms (FIOs) and human pathogenic microorganisms in sediments is important from a water quality, human health and ecological perspective. Typically, both bacteria and viruses strongly associate with particulate matter present in freshwater, estuarine and marine environments. This association tends to be stronger in finer textured sediments and is strongly influenced by the type and quantity of clay minerals and organic matter present. Binding to particle surfaces promotes the persistence of bacteria in the environment by offering physical and chemical protection from biotic and abiotic stresses. How bacterial and viral viability and pathogenicity is influenced by surface attachment requires further study. Typically, long-term association with surfaces including sediments induces bacteria to enter a viable-but-non-culturable (VBNC) state. Inherent methodological challenges of quantifying VBNC bacteria may lead to the frequent under-reporting of their abundance in sediments. The implications of this in a quantitative risk assessment context remain unclear. Similarly, sediments can harbor significant amounts of enteric viruses, however, the factors regulating their persistence remains poorly understood. Quantification of viruses in sediment remains problematic due to our poor ability to recover intact viral particles from sediment surfaces (typically <10%), our inability to distinguish between infective and damaged (non-infective) viral particles, aggregation of viral particles, and inhibition during qPCR. This suggests that the true viral titre in sediments may be being vastly underestimated. In turn, this is limiting our ability to understand the fate and transport of viruses in sediments. Model systems (e.g., human cell culture) are also lacking for some key viruses, preventing our ability to evaluate the infectivity of viruses recovered from sediments (e.g., norovirus). The release of particle-bound bacteria and viruses into the water column during sediment resuspension also represents a risk to water quality. In conclusion, our poor process level understanding of viral/bacterial-sediment interactions combined with methodological challenges is limiting the accurate source apportionment and quantitative microbial risk assessment for pathogenic organisms associated with sediments in aquatic environments.

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 profiles of 11 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 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 228 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 16%
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 50 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 18%
Environmental Science 34 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 9%
Engineering 17 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 6%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 67 29%
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 11 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,100,630
of 24,654,957 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#5,056
of 28,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,336
of 317,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#125
of 417 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,654,957 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 317,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 417 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.