↓ Skip to main content

Methods for detecting Gemmata spp. bacteremia in the microbiology laboratory

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Methods for detecting Gemmata spp. bacteremia in the microbiology laboratory
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-3119-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacques-Robert Christen, Edwin Edmond, Michel Drancourt

Abstract

Gemmata bacteria are fastidious, Gram-negative and aerobic. The only representatives are Gemmata obscuriglobus and Gemmata massiliana. These Planctomycetes appear to be a part of human digestive tract microbiome, and G. massiliana has been isolated from water. Further specific detection in the blood of two patients with febrile neutropenia suggests that Gemmata bacteremia may remain under-documented. The objective of this study was to develop an effective protocol to document Gemmata spp. bacteremia in the laboratory. Using mock-infected and control blood specimens, three methods for detecting Gemmata bacteremia, namely, automated microbial detection, culture on solid medium, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), have been developed and studied. Gemmata spp. were undetected by automated blood culture system but culturing mock-infected blood on Caulobacter agar detected ≥ 102 G. obscuriglobus bacteria/mL and ≥ 104 G. massiliana bacteria/mL. Specific real-time PCR detected 102 Gemmata bacteria/mL. These protocols may be used to investigate the epidemiology of Gemmata spp. bacteremia.

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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Librarian 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 3 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Engineering 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,438,540
of 15,220,640 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#387
of 3,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,719
of 404,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#40
of 419 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,220,640 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 3,379 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 404,154 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 419 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 90% of its contemporaries.