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 |
Separation of Mycobacterium abscessus into subspecies or genotype level by direct application of peptide nucleic acid multi-probe- real-time PCR method into sputa samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-015-1076-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kijeong Kim, Seok-Hyun Hong, Byoung-Jun Kim, Bo-Ram Kim, So-Young Lee, Ga-Na Kim, Tae Sun Shim, Yoon-Hoh Kook, Bum-Joon Kim |
| Abstract |
Recently, we introduced a novel peptide nucleic acid (PNA) multi-probe real time PCR method targeting the hsp65 gene (hsp65 PNA RT-PCR) to distinguish Mycobacterium abscessus groups. Here, we evaluated the usefulness of the hsp65 PNA RT-PCR for the direct identification of the M. abscessus group at the subspecies and genotype levels from sputa samples. The method was applied to total sputa DNA from 60 different patients who were identified as having mycobacterial infections via rpoB PCR restriction analysis of the same cultures. The hsp65 PNA RT-PCR method had higher sensitivity than the multi-probe real-time PCR assay targeting hsp65 (HMPRT-PCR) for the detection of M. abscessus from sputum [96.7 % (29/30 samples) vs. 70 % (21/30 samples); 100 % specificity]. These results suggest that the PNA-based method is feasible for the detection of M. abscessus members not only from cultures but also directly from sputa. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,768,879
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,105
of 7,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,102
of 264,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#113
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.