↓ Skip to main content

The contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
40 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species
Published in
Microbiome, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40168-018-0485-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melhem Bilen, Jean-Charles Dufour, Jean-Christophe Lagier, Fréderic Cadoret, Ziad Daoud, Grégory Dubourg, Didier Raoult

Abstract

After a decade of research and metagenomic analyses, our knowledge of the human microbiota appears to have reached a plateau despite promising results. In many studies, culture has proven to be essential in describing new prokaryotic species and filling metagenomic gaps. In 2015, only 2172 different prokaryotic species were reported to have been isolated at least once from the human body as pathogens or commensals. In this review, we update the previous repertoire by reporting the different species isolated from the human body to date, increasing it by 28% to reach a total of 2776 species associated with human beings. They have been classified into 11 different phyla, mostly the Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria. Finally, culturomics contributed up to 66.2% towards updating this repertoire by reporting 400 species, of which 288 were novel. This demonstrates the need to continue the culturing work, which seems essential in order to decipher the hidden human microbial content.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 17%
Student > Master 30 15%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 51 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 26 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 6%
Environmental Science 5 2%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 58 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 10 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,222,007
of 24,844,992 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#398
of 1,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,700
of 336,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#20
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,844,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 336,286 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.