↓ Skip to main content

The association between anterior nares and nasopharyngeal microbiota in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, January 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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 association between anterior nares and nasopharyngeal microbiota in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis
Published in
Microbiome, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40168-017-0385-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pamela N. Luna, Kohei Hasegawa, Nadim J. Ajami, Janice A. Espinola, David M. Henke, Joseph F. Petrosino, Pedro A. Piedra, Ashley F. Sullivan, Carlos A. Camargo, Chad A. Shaw, Jonathan M. Mansbach

Abstract

The airway microbiome is a subject of great interest for the study of respiratory disease. Anterior nare samples are more accessible than samples from deeper within the nasopharynx. However, the correlation between the microbiota found in the anterior nares and the microbiota found within the nasopharynx is unknown. We assessed the anterior nares and nasopharyngeal microbiota to determine (1) the relation of the microbiota from these two upper airway sites and (2) if associations were maintained between the microbiota from these two sites and two bronchiolitis severity outcomes. Among 815 infants hospitalized at 17 US centers for bronchiolitis with optimal 16S rRNA gene sequence reads from both nasal swab and nasopharyngeal aspirate samples, there were strong intra-individual correlations in the microbial communities between the two sample types, especially relating to Haemophilus and Moraxella genera. By contrast, we found a high abundance of Staphylococcus genus in the nasal swabs-a pattern not found in the nasopharyngeal samples and not informative when predicting the dominant nasopharyngeal genera. While these disparities may have been due to sample processing differences (i.e., nasal swabs were mailed at ambient temperature to emulate processing of future parent collected swabs while nasopharyngeal aspirates were mailed on dry ice), a previously reported association between Haemophilus-dominant nasopharyngeal microbiota and the increased severity of bronchiolitis was replicated utilizing the nasal swab microbiota and the same outcome measures: intensive care use (adjusted OR 6.43; 95% CI 2.25-20.51; P < 0.001) and hospital length-of-stay (adjusted OR 4.31; 95% CI, 1.73-11.11; P = 0.002). Additionally, Moraxella-dominant nasopharyngeal microbiota was previously identified as protective against intensive care use, a result that was replicated when analyzing the nasal swab microbiota (adjusted OR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.64; P = 0.01). While the microbiota of the anterior nares and the nasopharynx are distinct, there is considerable overlap between the bacterial community compositions from these two anatomic sites. Despite processing differences between the samples, these results indicate that microbiota severity associations from the nasopharynx are recapitulated in the anterior nares, suggesting that nasal swab samples not only are effective sample types, but also can be used to detect microbial risk markers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,768,733
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#656
of 1,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,480
of 456,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#29
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 456,869 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.