↓ Skip to main content

Hologenome analysis of two marine sponges with different microbiomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Hologenome analysis of two marine sponges with different microbiomes
Published in
BMC Genomics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2501-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taewoo Ryu, Loqmane Seridi, Lucas Moitinho-Silva, Matthew Oates, Yi Jin Liew, Charalampos Mavromatis, Xiaolei Wang, Annika Haywood, Feras F. Lafi, Marija Kupresanin, Rachid Sougrat, Majed A. Alzahrani, Emily Giles, Yanal Ghosheh, Celia Schunter, Sebastian Baumgarten, Michael L. Berumen, Xin Gao, Manuel Aranda, Sylvain Foret, Julian Gough, Christian R. Voolstra, Ute Hentschel, Timothy Ravasi

Abstract

Sponges (Porifera) harbor distinct microbial consortia within their mesohyl interior. We herein analysed the hologenomes of Stylissa carteri and Xestospongia testudinaria, which notably differ in their microbiome content. Our analysis revealed that S. carteri has an expanded repertoire of immunological domains, specifically Scavenger Receptor Cysteine-Rich (SRCR)-like domains, compared to X. testudinaria. On the microbial side, metatranscriptome analyses revealed an overrepresentation of potential symbiosis-related domains in X. testudinaria. Our findings provide genomic insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying host-symbiont coevolution and may serve as a roadmap for future hologenome analyses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 138 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 21%
Student > Master 30 21%
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 22%
Environmental Science 16 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Chemistry 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 24 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,297,189
of 17,416,875 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#368
of 9,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,792
of 271,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,416,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,299 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 271,374 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 90% 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