↓ Skip to main content

Determination of nasal and oropharyngeal microbiomes in a multicenter population-based study – findings from Pretest 1 of the German National Cohort

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, May 2017
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Determination of nasal and oropharyngeal microbiomes in a multicenter population-based study – findings from Pretest 1 of the German National Cohort
Published in
Scientific Reports, May 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-01212-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manas K. Akmatov, Nadine Koch, Marius Vital, Wolfgang Ahrens, Dieter Flesch-Janys, Julia Fricke, Anja Gatzemeier, Halina Greiser, Kathrin Günther, Thomas Illig, Rudolf Kaaks, Bastian Krone, Andrea Kühn, Jakob Linseisen, Christine Meisinger, Karin Michels, Susanne Moebus, Alexandra Nieters, Nadia Obi, Anja Schultze, Julia Six-Merker, Dietmar H. Pieper, Frank Pessler

Abstract

We examined acceptability, preference and feasibility of collecting nasal and oropharyngeal swabs, followed by microbiome analysis, in a population-based study with 524 participants. Anterior nasal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected by certified personnel. In addition, participants self-collected nasal swabs at home four weeks later. Four swab types were compared regarding (1) participants' satisfaction and acceptance and (2) detection of microbial community structures based on deep sequencing of the 16 S rRNA gene V1-V2 variable regions. All swabbing methods were highly accepted. Microbial community structure analysis revealed 846 phylotypes, 46 of which were unique to oropharynx and 164 unique to nares. The calcium alginate tipped swab was found unsuitable for microbiome determinations. Among the remaining three swab types, there were no differences in oropharyngeal microbiomes detected and only marginal differences in nasal microbiomes. Microbial community structures did not differ between staff-collected and self-collected nasal swabs. These results suggest (1) that nasal and oropharyngeal swabbing are highly feasible methods for human population-based studies that include the characterization of microbial community structures in these important ecological niches, and (2) that self-collection of nasal swabs at home can be used to reduce cost and resources needed, particularly when serial measurements are to be taken.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Unspecified 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Unspecified 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,120,636
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#26,431
of 136,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,007
of 315,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#794
of 4,015 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 136,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 315,590 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 4,015 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.