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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
DNA–VLP prime–boost intra-nasal immunization induces cellular and humoral anti-HIV-1 systemic and mucosal immunity with cross-clade neutralizing activity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Vaccine, June 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.05.052 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Buonaguro, C. Devito, M.L. Tornesello, U. Schröder, B. Wahren, J. Hinkula, F.M. Buonaguro |
| Abstract |
The immune response to HIV-1 virus-like particles (VLPs), presenting a clade A Ugandan gp120, has been evaluated in a mouse model by intra-nasal (i.n.) administration by a VLP+VLP homologous or a DNA+VLP heterologous prime-boost immunization protocol, including a HIV-1 DNA gp160/rev plasmid. Furthermore, the effect of the Eurocine lipid-based mucosal L3 adjuvant on the VLP immunogenicity has been assessed as well. The designed heterologous protocol is able to increase the env-specific humoral and cellular immune response, compared to the homologous protocol, which is to some extent increased by the administration of L3-adjuvanted VLP boosting dose. The anti-gag response is statistically increased in both homologous and heterologous protocols, particularly when the VLP boosting dose is adjuvanted. Immune sera from immunized animals exhibit >50% ex vivo neutralizing activity against heterologous A and B-clade viral isolates. An envelope B-cell epitope mapping shows an enhanced response against V3 epitopes all across the C2-V5 region in the heterologous prime-boost immunization strategy. The induction of humoral immunity at mucosal sites, which represents the main port of entry for the HIV-1 infection, is extremely relevant. In this framework, the DNA-VLP heterologous prime-boost protocol appears a promising preventive vaccine approach which can significantly benefit from specific mucosal adjuvants, as the Eurocine L3. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,414,665
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Vaccine
#2,984
of 16,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,510
of 82,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vaccine
#8
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 82,744 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.