↓ Skip to main content

Prospects for control of African trypanosomiasis by tsetse vector manipulation

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Parasitology, January 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Prospects for control of African trypanosomiasis by tsetse vector manipulation
Published in
Trends in Parasitology, January 2001
DOI 10.1016/s1471-4922(00)01850-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serap Aksoy, Scott L. O'Neill, Ian Maudlin, Colin Dale, Alan S. Robinson

Abstract

The extensive antigenic variation phenomena African trypanosomes display in their mammalian host have hampered efforts to develop effective vaccines against trypanosomiasis. Human disease management aims largely to treat infected hosts by chemotherapy, whereas control of animal diseases relies on reducing tsetse populations as well as on drug therapy. The control strategies for animal diseases are carried out and financed by livestock owners, who have an obvious economic incentive. Sustaining largely insecticide-based control at a local level and relying on drugs for treatment of infected hosts for a disease for which there is no evidence of acquired immunity could prove extremely costly in the long run. It is more likely that a combination of several methods in an integrated, phased and area-wide approach would be more effective in controlling these diseases and subsequently improving agricultural output. New approaches that are environmentally acceptable, efficacious and affordable are clearly desirable for control of various medically and agriculturally important insects including tsetse. Here, Serap Aksoy and colleagues discuss molecular genetic approaches to modulate tsetse vector competence.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 6%
United Kingdom 3 5%
Czechia 1 2%
Egypt 1 2%
Kenya 1 2%
Unknown 53 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 37%
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Professor 5 8%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 5 8%
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 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Parasitology
#1,305
of 2,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,248
of 114,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Parasitology
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 114,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.