↓ Skip to main content

Enrichment of lung microbiome with supraglottic taxa is associated with increased pulmonary inflammation

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
359 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
302 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Enrichment of lung microbiome with supraglottic taxa is associated with increased pulmonary inflammation
Published in
Microbiome, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/2049-2618-1-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leopoldo N Segal, Alexander V Alekseyenko, Jose C Clemente, Rohan Kulkarni, Benjamin Wu, Hao Chen, Kenneth I Berger, Roberta M Goldring, William N Rom, Martin J Blaser, Michael D Weiden

Abstract

The lung microbiome of healthy individuals frequently harbors oral organisms. Despite evidence that microaspiration is commonly associated with smoking-related lung diseases, the effects of lung microbiome enrichment with upper airway taxa on inflammation has not been studied. We hypothesize that the presence of oral microorganisms in the lung microbiome is associated with enhanced pulmonary inflammation. To test this, we sampled bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) from the lower airways of 29 asymptomatic subjects (nine never-smokers, 14 former-smokers, and six current-smokers). We quantified, amplified, and sequenced 16S rRNA genes from BAL samples by qPCR and 454 sequencing. Pulmonary inflammation was assessed by exhaled nitric oxide (eNO), BAL lymphocytes, and neutrophils.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 291 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 21%
Researcher 60 20%
Student > Master 40 13%
Student > Bachelor 30 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 37 12%
Unknown 55 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 71 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 49 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 43 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 1%
Other 23 8%
Unknown 66 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,474,220
of 24,081,774 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,442
of 1,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,713
of 198,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,081,774 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 198,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.