↓ Skip to main content

A novel cardiovirus in wild rats

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
A novel cardiovirus in wild rats
Published in
Virology Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12985-018-0968-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Wang, Jing Zhao, Min Zheng, Zhijian Liu, Wang Li, Xingli Fu, Yuan Lin, Jiaqi Yuan, Jieji Zhao, Quan Shen, Xiaochun Wang, Hua Wang, Shixing Yang

Abstract

Cardioviruses cause severe illnesses in rodents and humans. In recent years, novel cardioviruses have been frequently found, which promoted further studies of the genetic diversity of cardioviruses. Using viral metagenomics, we genetically characterized a novel cardiovirus (named SX1) from wild rat feces. The genomic structure of SX1 shared similar features with those of the Theiler's murine encephalomyelitis viruses, including a leader protein, four structural proteins and seven non-structural proteins. Phylogenetic analysis based on both structural proteins and non-structural proteins coding regions showed that SX1 was formed into a separate branch, being located between the branches of Theiler's murine encephalomyelitis viruses and Thera viruses. Variable resides presented in the Ser/Thr rich domain of L protein, VP1 loops, and VP2 puffs distinguished SX1 from Theiler's murine encephalomyelitis viruses, suggesting the different antigenicity and pathogenicity of SX1.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 25%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 17%
Unspecified 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 5 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,756,816
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#467
of 3,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,299
of 331,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#8
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 331,235 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.