↓ Skip to main content

Cytotoxic Necrotizing Factor-1 (CNF1) does not promote E. coli infection in a murine model of ascending pyelonephritis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Cytotoxic Necrotizing Factor-1 (CNF1) does not promote E. coli infection in a murine model of ascending pyelonephritis
Published in
BMC Microbiology, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12866-017-1036-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason E. Michaud, Kwang Sik Kim, William Harty, Matthew Kasprenski, Ming-Hsien Wang

Abstract

Urinary tract infections (UTI) are among the most common and costly infections in both hospitalized and ambulatory patients. Uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) represent the majority of UTI isolates and are a diverse group of bacteria that utilize a variety of virulence factors to establish infection of the genitourinary tract. The virulence factor cytotoxic necrotizing factor-1 (CNF1) is frequently expressed in clinical UPEC isolates. To date, there have been conflicting reports on the role of CNF1 in the pathogenesis of E. coli urinary tract infections. We examined the importance of CNF1 in a murine ascending kidney infection/ pyelonephritis model by performing comparative studies between a clinical UPEC isolate strain and a CNF1-deletion mutant. We found no alterations in bacterial burden with the loss of CNF1, whereas loss of the virulence factor fimH decreased bacterial burdens. In addition, we found no evidence that CNF1 contributed to the recruitment of inflammatory infiltrates in the kidney or bladder in vivo. While further examination of CNF-1 may reveal a role in UTI pathogenesis, our data casts doubt on the role of CNF-1 in the pathogenesis of UPEC UTI. As with other infections, different models and approaches are needed to elucidate the contribution of CNF1 to E. coli UTI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,897,310
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#2,019
of 3,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,152
of 313,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#36
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,206 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 313,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.