↓ Skip to main content

Yersinia pestis: Retrospective and Perspective

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 13: Bacteriophages of Yersinia pestis.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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.
Chapter title
Bacteriophages of Yersinia pestis.
Chapter number 13
Book title
Yersinia pestis: Retrospective and Perspective
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-94-024-0890-4_13
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-9-40-240888-1, 978-9-40-240890-4
Authors

Xiangna Zhao, Mikael Skurnik, Zhao, Xiangna, Skurnik, Mikael

Editors

Ruifu Yang, Andrey Anisimov

Abstract

Bacteriophage play many varied roles in microbial ecology and evolution. This chapter collates a vast body of knowledge and expertise on Yersinia pestis phages, including the history of their isolation and classical methods for their isolation and identification. The genomic diversity of Y. pestis phage and bacteriophage islands in the Y. pestis genome are also discussed because all phage research represents a branch of genetics. In addition, our knowledge of the receptors that are recognized by Y. pestis phage, advances in phage therapy for Y. pestis infections, the application of phage in the detection of Y. pestis, and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) sequences of Y. pestis from prophage DNA are all reviewed here.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 11 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,818,525
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,145
of 5,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,201
of 405,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#193
of 446 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 405,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 446 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 55% of its contemporaries.