↓ Skip to main content

Comparative genomic analysis of a multiple antimicrobial resistant enterotoxigenic E. coli O157 lineage from Australian pigs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, March 2015
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)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Comparative genomic analysis of a multiple antimicrobial resistant enterotoxigenic E. coli O157 lineage from Australian pigs
Published in
BMC Genomics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-1382-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ethan Wyrsch, Piklu Roy Chowdhury, Sam Abraham, Jerran Santos, Aaron E Darling, Ian G Charles, Toni A Chapman, Steven P Djordjevic

Abstract

Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) are a major economic threat to pig production globally, with serogroups O8, O9, O45, O101, O138, O139, O141, O149 and O157 implicated as the leading diarrhoeal pathogens affecting pigs below four weeks of age. A multiple antimicrobial resistant ETEC O157 (O157 SvETEC) representative of O157 isolates from a pig farm in New South Wales, Australia that experienced repeated bouts of pre- and post-weaning diarrhoea resulting in multiple fatalities was characterized here. Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) O157:H7 cause both sporadic and widespread outbreaks of foodborne disease, predominantly have a ruminant origin and belong to the ST11 clonal complex. Here, for the first time, we conducted comparative genomic analyses of two epidemiologically-unrelated porcine, disease-causing ETEC O157; E. coli O157 SvETEC and E. coli O157:K88 734/3, and examined their phylogenetic relationship with EHEC O157:H7.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Kenya 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 27%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 11 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 28 April 2015.
All research outputs
#3,104,619
of 16,519,376 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,452
of 9,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,751
of 220,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,519,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,065 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 220,221 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them