↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Characterization and regulation of the Resistance-Nodulation-Cell Division-type multidrug efflux pumps MdtABC and MdtUVW from the fire blight pathogen Erwinia amylovora

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, January 2014
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Blogs Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Characterization and regulation of the Resistance-Nodulation-Cell Division-type multidrug efflux pumps MdtABC and MdtUVW from the fire blight pathogen Erwinia amylovora
Published in
BMC Microbiology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2180-14-185
Pubmed ID
25012600
Authors

Daniel Pletzer, Helge Weingart

Abstract

The Gram-negative bacterium Erwinia amylovora is the causal agent of the devastating disease fire blight in rosaceous plants such as apple, pear, quince, raspberry, and cotoneaster. In order to survive and multiply in a host, microbes must be able to circumvent the toxic effects of antimicrobial plant compounds, such as flavonoids and tannins. E. amylovora uses multidrug efflux transporters that recognize and actively export toxic compounds out of the cells. Here, two heterotrimeric resistance-nodulation-cell division (RND)-type multidrug efflux pumps, MdtABC and MdtUVW, from E. amylovora were identified. These RND systems are unusual in that they contain two different RND proteins forming a functional pump.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tunisia 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 30%
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 12 January 2015.
All research outputs
#3,727,285
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#363
of 3,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,680
of 305,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#10
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,184 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 305,266 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.