↓ Skip to main content

Critical Review of Norovirus Surrogates in Food Safety Research: Rationale for Considering Volunteer Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Food and Environmental Virology, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Critical Review of Norovirus Surrogates in Food Safety Research: Rationale for Considering Volunteer Studies
Published in
Food and Environmental Virology, December 2011
DOI 10.1007/s12560-011-9072-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary P. Richards

Abstract

The inability to propagate human norovirus (NoV) or to clearly differentiate infectious from noninfectious virus particles has led to the use of surrogate viruses, like feline calicivirus (FCV) and murine norovirus-1 (MNV), which are propagatable in cell culture. The use of surrogates is predicated on the assumption that they generally mimic the viruses they represent; however, studies are proving this concept invalid. In direct comparisons between FCV and MNV, their susceptibility to temperatures, environmental and food processing conditions, and disinfectants are dramatically different. Differences have also been noted between the inactivation of NoV and its surrogates, thus questioning the validity of surrogates. Considerable research funding is provided globally each year to conduct surrogate studies on NoVs; however, there is little demonstrated benefit derived from these studies in regard to the development of virus inactivation techniques or food processing strategies. Human challenge studies are needed to determine which processing techniques are effective in reducing NoVs in foods. A major obstacle to clinical trials on NoVs is the perception that such trials are too costly and risky, but in reality, there is far more cost and risk in allowing millions of unsuspecting consumers to contract NoV illness each year, when practical interventions are only a few volunteer studies away. A number of clinical trials have been conducted, providing important insights into NoV inactivation. A shift in research priorities from surrogate research to volunteer studies is essential if we are to identify realistic, practical, and scientifically valid processing approaches to improve food safety.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Unknown 97 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 28%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 31%
Engineering 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Chemistry 4 4%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 20 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 June 2014.
All research outputs
#7,445,163
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Food and Environmental Virology
#85
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,791
of 241,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Food and Environmental Virology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 241,047 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 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them