The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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.
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 |
Microbiome of Total Versus Live Bacteria in the Gut of Rex Rabbits
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00733 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiangchao Fu, Bo Zeng, Ping Wang, Lihuan Wang, Bin Wen, Ying Li, Hanzhong Liu, Shiqie Bai, Gang Jia |
| Abstract |
Gastrointestinal bacteria are essential for host health, and only viable microorganisms contribute to gastrointestinal functions. When evaluating the gut microbiota by next generation sequencing method, dead bacteria, which compose a proportion of gut bacteria, may distort analysis of the live gut microbiota. We collected stomach, jejunum, ileum, cecum, and colon contents from Rex rabbits. A modified propidium monoazide (PMA) treatment protocol was used to exclude DNA from dead bacteria. Analysis of untreated samples yielded total bacteria, and analysis of PMA-treated samples yielded live bacteria. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were performed to evaluate the live-to-total bacteria ratio and compare the difference between live and total microbiota in the entire digestive tract. A low proportion of live bacteria in the foregut (stomach 1.12%, jejunum 1.2%, ileum 2.84%) and a high proportion of live bacteria in the hindgut (cecum 24.66%, colon 19.08%) were observed. A significant difference existed between total and live microbiota. Clostridiales, Ruminococcaceae, and S24-7 dominated the hindgut of both groups, while Acinetobacter and Cupriavidus dominated only in live foregut microbiota. Clostridiales and Ruminococcaceae abundance decreased, while S24-7 increased in live hindgut microbiota. The alpha- and beta-diversities differed significantly between groups. Analysis of networks showed the mutual relationship between live bacteria differed vastly when compared with total bacteria. Our study revealed a large number of dead bacteria existed in the digestive tract of Rex rabbits and distorted the community profile of the live microbiota. Total bacteria is an improper representation of the live gut microbiota, particularly in the foregut. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 40% |
| Researcher | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 26% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
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 26 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,971,268
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#3,750
of 25,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,230
of 329,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#132
of 594 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,185 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 329,252 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 594 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.