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 |
Evaluation of inhibition of F4ac positive Escherichia coli attachment with xanthine dehydrogenase, butyrophilin, lactadherin and fatty acid binding protein
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Veterinary Research, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12917-015-0528-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Predrag Novakovic, Chandrashekhar Charavaryamath, Igor Moshynskyy, Betty Lockerbie, Radhey S. Kaushik, Matthew E. Loewen, Beverly A. Kidney, Chris Stuart, Elemir Simko |
| Abstract |
Neonatal and post-weaning colibacillosis caused by enterotoxigenic E. coli is responsible for substantial economic losses encountered by the pork industry. Intestinal colonization of young piglets by E. coli depends on the efficiency of bacterial attachment to host gastrointestinal epithelium that is mediated by fimbriae. We tested the effect of porcine individual milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) proteins on F4ac positive E. coli attachment to porcine enterocytes in vitro. Butyrophilin, lactadherin and fatty acid binding protein inhibited fimbriae-dependent adherence of E. coli to enterocytes in vitro, while xanthine dehydrogenase did not. The inhibiting activity was dose-dependent for all three proteins, but the inhibiting efficiency was different. The results indicate that MFGM proteins may interfere with attachment of E. coli to porcine neonatal intestinal mucosa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 28% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 17% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,426,826
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,922
of 3,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,752
of 268,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#37
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,050 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 268,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.