↓ Skip to main content

A comparative evaluation of feathers, oropharyngeal swabs, and cloacal swabs for the detection of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus infection in experimentally infected chickens and ducks

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
A comparative evaluation of feathers, oropharyngeal swabs, and cloacal swabs for the detection of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus infection in experimentally infected chickens and ducks
Published in
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, October 2015
DOI 10.1177/1040638715611443
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harimurti Nuradji, John Bingham, Sue Lowther, Hendra Wibawa, Axel Colling, Ngo Thanh Long, Joanne Meers

Abstract

Oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs have been widely used for the detection of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian Influenza A virus (HPAI virus) in birds. Previous studies have shown that the feather calamus is a site of H5N1 virus replication and therefore has potential for diagnosis of avian influenza. However, studies characterizing the value of feathers for this purpose are not available, to our knowledge; herein we present a study investigating feathers for detection of H5N1 virus. Ducks and chickens were experimentally infected with H5N1 HPAI virus belonging to 1 of 3 clades (Indonesian clades 2.1.1 and 2.1.3, Vietnamese clade 1). Different types of feathers and oropharyngeal and cloacal swab samples were compared by virus isolation. In chickens, virus was detected from all sample types: oral and cloacal swabs, and immature pectorosternal, flight, and tail feathers. During clinical disease, the viral titers were higher in feathers than swabs. In ducks, the proportion of virus-positive samples was variable depending on viral strain and time from challenge; cloacal swabs and mature pectorosternal feathers were clearly inferior to oral swabs and immature pectorosternal, tail, and flight feathers. In ducks infected with Indonesian strains, in which most birds did not develop clinical signs, all sampling methods gave intermittent positive results; 3-23% of immature pectorosternal feathers were positive during the acute infection period; oropharyngeal swabs had slightly higher positivity during early infection, while feathers performed better during late infection. Our results indicate that immature feathers are an alternative sample for the diagnosis of HPAI in chickens and ducks.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 12%
Environmental Science 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 12 29%
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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,897
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation
#806
of 1,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,564
of 279,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 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 1,576 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 279,229 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 16 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 62% of its contemporaries.