| Title |
What Controls the Acute Viral Infection Following Yellow Fever Vaccination?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11538-017-0365-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Moore, Hasan Ahmed, Jonathan Jia, Rama Akondy, Rafi Ahmed, Rustom Antia |
| Abstract |
Does target cell depletion, innate immunity, or adaptive immunity play the dominant role in controlling primary acute viral infections? Why do some individuals have higher peak virus titers than others? Answering these questions is a basic problem in immunology and can be particularly difficult in humans due to limited data, heterogeneity in responses in different individuals, and limited ability for experimental manipulation. We address these questions for infections following vaccination with the live attenuated yellow fever virus (YFV-17D) by analyzing viral load data from 80 volunteers. Using a mixed effects modeling approach, we find that target cell depletion models do not fit the data as well as innate or adaptive immunity models. Examination of the fits of the innate and adaptive immunity models to the data allows us to select a minimal model that gives improved fits by widely used model selection criteria (AICc and BIC) and explains why it is hard to distinguish between the innate and adaptive immunity models. We then ask why some individuals have over 1000-fold higher virus titers than others and find that most of the variation arises from differences in the initial/maximum growth rate of the virus in different individuals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 88% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 18% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,059,605
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#203
of 1,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,630
of 330,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 330,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.