↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Metagenomics of the Polymicrobial Black Band Disease of Corals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Comparative Metagenomics of the Polymicrobial Black Band Disease of Corals
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00618
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie L. Meyer, Valerie J. Paul, Laurie J. Raymundo, Max Teplitski

Abstract

Black Band Disease (BBD), the destructive microbial consortium dominated by the cyanobacterium Roseofilum reptotaenium, affects corals worldwide. While the taxonomic composition of BBD consortia has been well-characterized, substantially less is known about its functional repertoire. We sequenced the metagenomes of Caribbean and Pacific black band mats and cultured Roseofilum and obtained five metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) of Roseofilum, nine of Proteobacteria, and 12 of Bacteroidetes. Genomic content analysis suggests that Roseofilum is a source of organic carbon and nitrogen, as well as natural products that may influence interactions between microbes. Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes members of the disease consortium are suited to the degradation of amino acids, proteins, and carbohydrates. The accumulation of sulfide underneath the black band mat, in part due to a lack of sulfur oxidizers, contributes to the lethality of the disease. The presence of sulfide:quinone oxidoreductase genes in all five Roseofilum MAGs and in the MAGs of several heterotrophs demonstrates that resistance to sulfide is an important characteristic for members of the BBD consortium.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Researcher 16 20%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 22%
Environmental Science 13 16%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,857,378
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#5,510
of 25,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,016
of 311,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#188
of 510 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 311,489 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 510 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 63% of its contemporaries.