↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenetic Analysis of Burkholderia Species by Multilocus Sequence Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Current Microbiology, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
Title
Phylogenetic Analysis of Burkholderia Species by Multilocus Sequence Analysis
Published in
Current Microbiology, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00284-013-0330-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulina Estrada-de los Santos, Pablo Vinuesa, Lourdes Martínez-Aguilar, Ann M. Hirsch, Jesús Caballero-Mellado

Abstract

Burkholderia comprises more than 60 species of environmental, clinical, and agro-biotechnological relevance. Previous phylogenetic analyses of 16S rRNA, recA, gyrB, rpoB, and acdS gene sequences as well as genome sequence comparisons of different Burkholderia species have revealed two major species clusters. In this study, we undertook a multilocus sequence analysis of 77 type and reference strains of Burkholderia using atpD, gltB, lepA, and recA genes in combination with the 16S rRNA gene sequence and employed maximum likelihood and neighbor-joining criteria to test this further. The phylogenetic analysis revealed, with high supporting values, distinct lineages within the genus Burkholderia. The two large groups were named A and B, whereas the B. rhizoxinica/B. endofungorum, and B. andropogonis groups consisted of two and one species, respectively. The group A encompasses several plant-associated and saprophytic bacterial species. The group B comprises the B. cepacia complex (opportunistic human pathogens), the B. pseudomallei subgroup, which includes both human and animal pathogens, and an assemblage of plant pathogenic species. The distinct lineages present in Burkholderia suggest that each group might represent a different genus. However, it will be necessary to analyze the full set of Burkholderia species and explore whether enough phenotypic features exist among the different clusters to propose that these groups should be considered separate genera.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Brazil 3 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Caledonia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 134 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 23%
Researcher 28 19%
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Other 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 59%
Unspecified 21 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 11 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,273,973
of 12,229,156 outputs
Outputs from Current Microbiology
#251
of 1,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,466
of 144,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Microbiology
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,229,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,376 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 144,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.