↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Genomics of Nitrogen Cycling Pathways in Bacteria and Archaea

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Ecology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Comparative Genomics of Nitrogen Cycling Pathways in Bacteria and Archaea
Published in
Microbial Ecology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00248-018-1239-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaeline B. N. Albright, Bibek Timalsina, Jennifer B. H. Martiny, John Dunbar

Abstract

Despite the explosion of metagenomic sequencing data, using -omics data to predict environmental biogeochemistry remains a challenge. One or a few genes (referred to as marker genes) in a metabolic pathway of interest in meta-omic data are typically used to represent the prevalence of a biogeochemical reaction. This approach often fails to demonstrate a consistent relationship between gene abundance and an ecosystem process rate. One reason this may occur is if a marker gene is not a good representative of a complete pathway. Here, we map the presence of 11 nitrogen (N)-cycling pathways in over 6000 complete bacterial and archaeal genomes using the Integrated Microbial Genomes database. Incomplete N-cycling pathways occurred in 39% of surveyed archaeal and bacterial species revealing a weakness in current marker-gene analyses. Furthermore, we found that most organisms have limited ability to utilize inorganic N in multiple oxidation states. This suggests that inter-organism exchange of inorganic N compounds is common, highlighting the importance of both community composition and spatial structure in determining the extent of recycling versus loss in an ecosystem.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 7 13%
Unspecified 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 36%
Unspecified 14 26%
Environmental Science 9 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,368,891
of 13,226,211 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Ecology
#112
of 1,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,720
of 266,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Ecology
#7
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,226,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 266,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.