↓ Skip to main content

Candida Species

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 10: Experimental Models of C. albicans-Streptococcal Co-infection.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Experimental Models of C. albicans-Streptococcal Co-infection.
Chapter number 10
Book title
Candida Species
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3052-4_10
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-3051-7, 978-1-4939-3052-4
Authors

Sobue, Takanori, Diaz, Patricia, Xu, Hongbin, Bertolini, Martinna, Dongari-Bagtzoglou, Anna, Takanori Sobue, Patricia Diaz, Hongbin Xu, Martinna Bertolini, Anna Dongari-Bagtzoglou

Abstract

Interactions of C. albicans with co-colonizing bacteria at mucosal sites can be synergistic or antagonistic in disease development, depending on the bacterial species and mucosal site. Mitis group streptococci and C. albicans colonize the oral mucosa of the majority of healthy individuals. These streptococci have been termed "accessory pathogens," defined by their ability to initiate multispecies biofilm assembly and promote the virulence of the mixed bacterial biofilm community in which they participate. To demonstrate whether interactions with Mitis group streptococci limit or promote the potential of C. albicans to become an opportunistic pathogen, in vitro and in vivo co-infection models are needed. Here, we describe two C. albicans-streptococcal co-infection models: an organotypic oral mucosal tissue model that incorporates salivary flow and a mouse model of oral co-infection that requires reduced levels of immunosuppression compared to single fungal infection.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 20%
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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,429,829
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,920
of 13,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,422
of 393,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#846
of 1,470 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 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 13,126 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 393,555 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 1,470 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.