↓ Skip to main content

Blue Biotechnology

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 9: Entotheonella Bacteria as Source of Sponge-Derived Natural Products: Opportunities for Biotechnological Production
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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.
Chapter title
Entotheonella Bacteria as Source of Sponge-Derived Natural Products: Opportunities for Biotechnological Production
Chapter number 9
Book title
Blue Biotechnology
Published in
Progress in molecular and subcellular biology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51284-6_9
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-951282-2, 978-3-31-951284-6
Authors

Agneya Bhushan, Eike E. Peters, Jörn Piel

Abstract

Marine sponges belong to the oldest animals existing today. Apart from their role in recycling of carbon and nitrogen in the ocean, they are also an important source of a wide variety of structurally diverse bioactive natural products. Over the past few decades, a multitude of compounds from sponges have been discovered exhibiting diverse, pharmacologically promising activities. However, in many cases the low substance quantities present in the sponge tissue would require the collection of large amounts of sponge material, thus impeding further drug development. Recent research has focused on understanding natural product biosynthesis in sponges and on investigating symbiotic bacteria as possible production sources in order to develop sustainable production systems. This chapter covers research efforts that have taken place over the past few years involving the identification of 'Entotheonella' symbionts responsible for production of sponge compounds, as well as the elucidation of their biosynthetic routes, highlighting future biotechnological applications.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 32%
Environmental Science 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 16%
Chemistry 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
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 18 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,555,330
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Progress in molecular and subcellular biology
#49
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,313
of 421,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in molecular and subcellular biology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 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 82 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 421,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.