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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Librarian | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 3 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Engineering | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
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 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#3,710,862
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#530
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,792
of 442,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#24
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 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 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 442,237 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.