↓ Skip to main content

The effect of cigarette smoking on the oral and nasal microbiota

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, January 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 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
The effect of cigarette smoking on the oral and nasal microbiota
Published in
Microbiome, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40168-016-0226-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guoqin Yu, Stephen Phillips, Mitchell H. Gail, James J. Goedert, Michael S. Humphrys, Jacques Ravel, Yanfang Ren, Neil E. Caporaso

Abstract

The goal of the study was to investigate whether cigarette smoking alters oral and nasal microbial diversity, composition, and structure. Twenty-three current smokers and 20 never smokers were recruited. From each subject, nine samples including supra and subgingiva plaque scrapes, saliva, swabs from five soft oral tissue sites, and one nasal swab from both the anterior nares were collected. 16S rRNA V3-V4 region was sequenced for microbial profiles. We found that alpha diversity was lower in smokers than in nonsmokers in the buccal mucosa, but in other sample sites, microbial diversity and composition were not significantly different by smoking status. Microbial profiles differed significantly among eight oral sites. This study investigates the effect of cigarette smoking on different sites of the oral cavity and shows a potential effect of cigarette smoking on the buccal mucosa microbiota. The marked heterogeneity of the oral microbial ecosystem that we found may contribute to the stability of the oral microbiota in most sites when facing environmental perturbations such as that caused by cigarette smoking.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 177 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 19%
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Master 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 38 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 5%
Environmental Science 7 4%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 45 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,507,088
of 19,040,944 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#593
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,321
of 374,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,040,944 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 374,823 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.