↓ Skip to main content

Wolbachia Infection Reduces Blood-Feeding Success in the Dengue Fever Mosquito, Aedes aegypti

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
163 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
312 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
Wolbachia Infection Reduces Blood-Feeding Success in the Dengue Fever Mosquito, Aedes aegypti
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, September 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000516
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew P. Turley, Luciano A. Moreira, Scott L. O'Neill, Elizabeth A. McGraw

Abstract

The mosquito Aedes aegypti was recently transinfected with a life-shortening strain of the endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis (wMelPop) as the first step in developing a biocontrol strategy for dengue virus transmission. In addition to life-shortening, the wMelPop-infected mosquitoes also exhibit increased daytime activity and metabolic rates. Here we sought to quantify the blood-feeding behaviour of Wolbachia-infected females as an indicator of any virulence or energetic drain associated with Wolbachia infection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 312 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Australia 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
French Polynesia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 292 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 77 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 16%
Student > Master 49 16%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Other 14 4%
Other 45 14%
Unknown 40 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 152 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 8%
Environmental Science 15 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 4%
Other 28 9%
Unknown 43 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 30 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,797,686
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1,158
of 9,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,379
of 105,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 105,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.