↓ Skip to main content

In search of the malarial parasite

Overview of attention for article published in Parasitology Research, June 2011
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

wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
In search of the malarial parasite
Published in
Parasitology Research, June 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00436-011-2475-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristine Krafts, Ernst Hempelmann, Barbara J. Oleksyn

Abstract

Methylene blue was synthesized by Caro in 1876 at BASF, a chemical company. Six years later, Koch employed methylene blue when he discovered the tubercle bacillus. In 1880, Ehrlich described what he termed "neutral" dyes: mixtures of acidic and basic dyes for the differentiation of cells in peripheral blood smears. Bernthsen prepared in 1886 a relatively pure dye, obtained by decomposition of methylene blue, and called it methylene azure. In 1891, Malachowski developed a method which used mixtures of eosin and "ripened" methylene blue that not only differentiated blood cells, but also demonstrated the nuclei of malarial parasites. Romanowsky later performed the same feat with an unrepeatable method. A number of "ripening" (polychroming) techniques were investigated by different groups (Nocht 1899) but the aqueous dye solutions produced were unstable and precipitated rapidly. Subsequently, methanol was introduced as a solvent for the dye precipitate (Jenner 1899) and techniques were developed that utilized the fixative properties of the methanolic solution prior to aqueous dilution for staining (Wright 1902). Giemsa (1902) further improved these techniques by developing more precise methods of methylene blue demethylation and adding glycerol as a stabilizing agent to the methanol solvent. Today, the Malachowski-Wright-Giemsa stain continues to be regarded as the world's standard diagnostic technique for malaria.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Denmark 1 4%
Pakistan 1 4%
Unknown 22 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Master 4 16%
Professor 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Engineering 2 8%
Chemistry 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 3 12%
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 28 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,730,207
of 23,504,694 outputs
Outputs from Parasitology Research
#649
of 3,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,842
of 114,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasitology Research
#8
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,694 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 3,839 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 114,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.