| Title |
Correction to: Effect of incubation duration, growth temperature, and abiotic surface type on cell surface properties, adhesion and pathogenicity of biofilm-detached Staphylococcus aureus cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-017-0509-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon Oussama Khelissa, Charafeddine Jama, Marwan Abdallah, Rabah Boukherroub, Christine Faille, Nour-Eddine Chihib |
| Abstract |
Following publication of the original article (Khelissa et al. 2017), the authors reported that the legend for Fig. 3 contained an error. Instead of "Adhesion of planktonic and biofilm-detached Staphylococcus aureus cells on stainless steel and polycarbonate. Cell cultures were grown at 20, 30 and 37 °C, during 24 h (white square) and 48 h (white square). Planktonic cells adhesion on stainless steel (a) and polycarbonate (b). Adhesion of stainless steel-biofilm-detached-cells on stainless steel 24 (c) and polycarbonate-biofilm-detached-cells on polycarbonate (d)", the legend should read "Adhesion of planktonic and biofilm-detached Staphylococcus aureus cells on stainless steel and polycarbonate. Cell cultures were grown at 20, 30 and 37 °C, during 24 h (black square) and 48 h (white square). Planktonic cells adhesion on stainless steel (a) and polycarbonate (b). Adhesion of stainless steel-biofilm-detached-cells on stainless steel 24 |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 27% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 1 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 9% |
| Engineering | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 64% |
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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,960,072
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#349
of 1,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,516
of 439,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#15
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,241 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 439,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 60% of its contemporaries.