↓ Skip to main content

A phylogenomic analysis of Escherichia coli / Shigella group: implications of genomic features associated with pathogenicity and ecological adaptation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
A phylogenomic analysis of Escherichia coli / Shigella group: implications of genomic features associated with pathogenicity and ecological adaptation
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-12-174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Zhang, Kui Lin

Abstract

The Escherichia coli species contains a variety of commensal and pathogenic strains, and its intraspecific diversity is extraordinarily high. With the availability of an increasing number of E. coli strain genomes, a more comprehensive concept of their evolutionary history and ecological adaptation can be developed using phylogenomic analyses. In this study, we constructed two types of whole-genome phylogenies based on 34 E. coli strains using collinear genomic segments. The first phylogeny was based on the concatenated collinear regions shared by all of the studied genomes, and the second phylogeny was based on the variable collinear regions that are absent from at least one genome. Intuitively, the first phylogeny is likely to reveal the lineal evolutionary history among these strains (i.e., an evolutionary phylogeny), whereas the latter phylogeny is likely to reflect the whole-genome similarities of extant strains (i.e., a similarity phylogeny).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
China 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Researcher 16 19%
Other 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 9%
Computer Science 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 15 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 September 2012.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#3,511
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,504
of 187,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#54
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 187,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.