↓ Skip to main content

Improved Molecular Typing Assay for Rhinovirus Species A, B, and C

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Improved Molecular Typing Assay for Rhinovirus Species A, B, and C
Published in
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2014
DOI 10.1128/jcm.00075-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yury A. Bochkov, Kristine Grindle, Fue Vang, Michael D. Evans, James E. Gern

Abstract

Human rhinoviruses (RVs), comprising three species (A, B and C) of genus Enterovirus, are responsible for the majority of upper respiratory tract infections and associated with severe lower respiratory tract illnesses such as pneumonia and asthma exacerbations. High genetic diversity and continuous identification of new types require regular updating of the diagnostic assays for accurate and comprehensive detection of circulating RVs. Methods for molecular typing based on phylogenetic comparisons of a variable fragment in the 5' untranslated region were improved to increase assay sensitivity and to eliminate non-specific amplification of human sequences observed occasionally in clinical samples. A modified set of primers based on new sequence information and improved buffers and enzymes in semi-nested PCR provided higher specificity and sensitivity of virus detection. In addition, new diagnostic primers were designed for unequivocal species and type assignment of RV-C isolates based on phylogenetic analysis of partial VP4/VP2 coding sequence. The improved assay was evaluated by typing RVs in more than 3,800 clinical samples. RV was successfully detected and typed in 99% of the samples that were RV-positive by multiplex diagnostic assays.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 21 31%
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 14 February 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#12,463
of 14,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,859
of 241,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#90
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 14,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 241,759 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 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.