↓ Skip to main content

Multi-omics analysis on the pathogenicity of Enterobacter cloacae ENHKU01 isolated from sewage outfalls along the Ningbo coastline

Overview of attention for article published in Proteome Science, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Multi-omics analysis on the pathogenicity of Enterobacter cloacae ENHKU01 isolated from sewage outfalls along the Ningbo coastline
Published in
Proteome Science, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12953-016-0104-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dijun Zhang, Weina He, Qianqian Tong, Jun Zhou, Xiurong Su

Abstract

The acquisition of iron is important for the pathogenicity of bacteria and blood. Three different culture environments (Fe stimulation, blood agar plate and normal plate) were used to stimulate Enterobacter cloacae, and their respective pathogenicities were compared at the proteomic, mRNA and metabolomic levels. 2D-DIGE combined with MALDI-TOF-MS/MS, RT-PCR and (1)H NMR were used to analyze the differential expression levels of proteins, mRNA and metabolites. A total of 109 proteins were identified by 2D-DIGE and mass spectrometry after pairwise comparison within three culture environments, clustered into 3 classes and 183 functional categories, which were involved in 23 pathways. Based on the 2D-DIGE results, multiple proteins were selected for verification by mRNA expression. These results confirmed that most of the proteins were regulated at the transcriptional level. Thirty-eight metabolites were detected by NMR, which correlated with the differentially expressed proteins under different treatment conditions. The results show that culture in a blood agar plate and a suitable concentration of iron promote the pathogenicity of E. cloacae and that high iron concentrations may have adverse effects on growth and iron uptake and utilization by E. cloacae.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 32%
Researcher 3 16%
Lecturer 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 16%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,483,900
of 8,544,256 outputs
Outputs from Proteome Science
#65
of 110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,711
of 249,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proteome Science
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,544,256 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 110 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 249,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.