| Title |
The Significance of the Intestinal Microbiome for Vaccinology: From Correlations to Therapeutic Applications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40265-018-0941-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa C. Harris |
| Abstract |
Despite unprecedented advances in understanding the intestinal microbiome, its potential to improve fields such as vaccinology has yet to be realized. This review briefly outlines the immunologic potential of the intestinal microbiome for vaccinology and highlights areas where the microbiome holds specific promise in vaccinology. Oral rotavirus vaccine effectiveness in low-income countries is used as a case study to describe how the intestinal microbiome may be employed to improve a vaccine's immunogenicity. A top-down, evidence-based approach is proposed to identify effective microbiota-based applications for vaccine improvement. Applying evidence from field studies in pertinent populations that correlate microbiome composition with vaccine effectiveness to appropriate experimental platforms will lead to the identification of safe, vaccine-supporting microbiota targets that are relevant to populations in need of improvement in vaccine-induced immunity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 12 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 14% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,046,395
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#574
of 3,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,317
of 329,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 329,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.