↓ Skip to main content

Genome- and proteome-wide screening strategies for antigen discovery and immunogen design

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology Advances, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Genome- and proteome-wide screening strategies for antigen discovery and immunogen design
Published in
Biotechnology Advances, January 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.12.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Schussek, Angela Trieu, Denise L. Doolan

Abstract

Infectious diseases remain a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality and there is an urgent need for effective approaches to develop vaccines, especially against complex pathogens. The availability of comprehensive genomic, proteomic and transcriptomic datasets has shifted the paradigm of vaccine development from microbiological to sequence-based approaches. However, how to effectively translate raw data into candidate vaccines is not yet obvious. Herein, we review cutting-edge technologies and screening strategies to mine genomic sequence information for state-of-the-art rational vaccine design, and highlight recent trends. Interdisciplinary approaches which cross the traditional boundaries of genomics, molecular biology, cell biology, immunology and computer science, and which prioritise antigens according to clinically relevant criteria, offer potential solutions to the widespread threat that complex pathogens pose to public health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 37%
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Advances
#1,180
of 1,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,483
of 319,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Advances
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 319,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.