↓ Skip to main content

Trypanosoma cruzi Transmission Among Captive Nonhuman Primates, Wildlife, and Vectors

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Trypanosoma cruzi Transmission Among Captive Nonhuman Primates, Wildlife, and Vectors
Published in
EcoHealth, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10393-018-1318-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolyn L. Hodo, Gregory K. Wilkerson, Elise C. Birkner, Stanton B. Gray, Sarah A. Hamer

Abstract

Natural infection of captive nonhuman primates (NHPs) with Trypanosoma cruzi (agent of Chagas disease) is an increasingly recognized problem in facilities across the southern USA, with negative consequences for NHP health and biomedical research. We explored a central Texas NHP facility as a nidus of transmission by characterizing parasite discrete typing units (DTU) in seropositive rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), identifying the wildlife reservoirs, and characterizing vector infection. In seropositive NHPs, we documented low and intermittent concentrations of circulating T. cruzi DNA, with two DTUs in equal proportions, TcI and TcIV. In contrast, consistently high concentrations of T. cruzi DNA were found in wild mesomammals at the facility, yet rodents were PCR-negative. Strong wildlife host associations were found in which raccoons (Procyon lotor) harbored TcIV and opossums (Didelphis virginiana) harbored TcI, while skunks (Mephitis mephitis) were infected with both DTUs. Active and passive vector surveillance yielded three species of triatomines from the facility and in proximity to the NHP enclosures, with 17% T. cruzi infection prevalence. Interventions to protect NHP and human health must focus on interrupting spillover from the robust sylvatic transmission in the surrounding environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 11%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,708,506
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#554
of 711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,746
of 332,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 332,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.