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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Genetic Characterization of Archived Bunyaviruses and their Potential for Emergence in Australia - Volume 22, Number 5—May 2016 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2205.151566 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bixing Huang, Cadhla Firth, Daniel Watterson, Richard Allcock, Agathe M.G. Colmant, Jody Hobson-Peters, Peter Kirkland, Glen Hewitson, Jamie McMahon, Sonja Hall-Mendelin, Andrew F. van den Hurk, David Warrilow |
| Abstract |
To better understand the diversity of bunyaviruses and their circulation in Australia, we sequenced 5 viruses (Gan Gan, Trubanaman, Kowanyama, Yacaaba, and Taggert) isolated and serologically identified 4 decades ago as members of the family Bunyaviridae. Gan Gan and Trubanaman viruses almost perfectly matched 2 recently isolated, purportedly novel viruses, Salt Ash and Murrumbidgee viruses, respectively. Kowanyama and Yacaaba viruses were identified as being related to members of a large clade containing pathogenic viruses. Taggert virus was confirmed as being a nairovirus; several viruses of this genus are pathogenic to humans. The genetic relationships and historical experimental infections in mice reveal the potential for these viruses to lead to disease emergence. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 14% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,799,386
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#8,131
of 9,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,510
of 298,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#122
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 298,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.