↓ Skip to main content

Adaptation of Bordetella pertussis to vaccination: a cause for its reemergence?

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
30 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
2 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.
Title
Adaptation of Bordetella pertussis to vaccination: a cause for its reemergence?
Published in
Emerging Infectious Diseases, April 2013
DOI 10.3201/eid0707.010708
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. R. Mooi, I. H. van Loo, A. J. King, Mooi, F R, van Loo, I H, King, A J

Abstract

In the Netherlands, as in many other western countries, pertussis vaccines have been used extensively for more than 40 years. Therefore, it is conceivable that vaccine-induced immunity has affected the evolution of Bordetella pertussis. Consistent with this notion, pertussis has reemerged in the Netherlands, despite high vaccination coverage. Further, a notable change in the population structure of B. pertussis was observed in the Netherlands subsequent to the introduction of vaccination in the 1950s. Finally, we observed antigenic divergence between clinical isolates and vaccine strains, in particular with respect to the surface-associated proteins pertactin and pertussis toxin. Adaptation may have allowed B. pertussis to remain endemic despite widespread vaccination and may have contributed to the reemergence of pertussis in the Netherlands.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 100%
United States 1 50%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 950%
Student > Master 19 950%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 850%
Student > Bachelor 15 750%
Student > Postgraduate 6 300%
Other 16 800%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 1900%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 750%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 600%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 500%
Chemical Engineering 2 100%
Other 8 400%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 06 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,147,824
of 25,410,626 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,301
of 9,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,593
of 209,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#13
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,410,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 209,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.