↓ Skip to main content

Asymmetric cellular memory in bacteria exposed to antibiotics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Asymmetric cellular memory in bacteria exposed to antibiotics
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-0884-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roland Mathis, Martin Ackermann

Abstract

The ability to form a cellular memory and use it for cellular decision-making could help bacteria to cope with recurrent stress conditions. We analyzed whether bacteria would form a cellular memory specifically if past events are predictive of future conditions. We worked with the asymmetrically dividing bacterium Caulobacter crescentus where past events are expected to only be informative for one of the two cells emerging from division, the sessile cell that remains in the same microenvironment and does not migrate. Time-resolved analysis of individual cells revealed that past exposure to low levels of antibiotics increases tolerance to future exposure for the sessile but not for the motile cell. Using computer simulations, we found that such an asymmetry in cellular memory could be an evolutionary response to situations where the two cells emerging from division will experience different future conditions. Our results raise the question whether bacteria can evolve the ability to form and use cellular memory conditionally in situations where it is beneficial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Estonia 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 27%
Physics and Astronomy 5 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 June 2021.
All research outputs
#7,303,959
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,664
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,392
of 321,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#49
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 321,120 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.