↓ Skip to main content

The human microbiome in evolution

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#28 of 1,657)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
291 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
595 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 human microbiome in evolution
Published in
BMC Biology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12915-017-0454-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily R. Davenport, Jon G. Sanders, Se Jin Song, Katherine R. Amato, Andrew G. Clark, Rob Knight

Abstract

The trillions of microbes living in the gut-the gut microbiota-play an important role in human biology and disease. While much has been done to explore its diversity, a full understanding of our microbiomes demands an evolutionary perspective. In this review, we compare microbiomes from human populations, placing them in the context of microbes from humanity's near and distant animal relatives. We discuss potential mechanisms to generate host-specific microbiome configurations and the consequences of disrupting those configurations. Finally, we propose that this broader phylogenetic perspective is useful for understanding the mechanisms underlying human-microbiome interactions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 291 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 595 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 595 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 97 16%
Student > Bachelor 94 16%
Student > Master 86 14%
Researcher 76 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 43 7%
Other 90 15%
Unknown 109 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 151 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 120 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 55 9%
Environmental Science 19 3%
Other 69 12%
Unknown 124 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 175. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#141,915
of 19,148,527 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#28
of 1,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,965
of 426,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#5
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,148,527 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 426,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.