| Title |
Epidemiological study of zoonoses derived from humans in captive chimpanzees
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Primates, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10329-012-0320-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takanori Kooriyama, Michiko Okamoto, Tomoyuki Yoshida, Toshisada Nishida, Toshio Tsubota, Akatsuki Saito, Masaki Tomonaga, Tetsuro Matsuzawa, Hirofumi Akari, Hidekazu Nishimura, Takako Miyabe-Nishiwaki |
| Abstract |
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) in wildlife are major threats both to human health and to biodiversity conservation. An estimated 71.8 % of zoonotic EID events are caused by pathogens in wildlife and the incidence of such diseases is increasing significantly in humans. In addition, human diseases are starting to infect wildlife, especially non-human primates. The chimpanzee is an endangered species that is threatened by human activity such as deforestation, poaching, and human disease transmission. Recently, several respiratory disease outbreaks that are suspected of having been transmitted by humans have been reported in wild chimpanzees. Therefore, we need to study zoonotic pathogens that can threaten captive chimpanzees in primate research institutes. Serological surveillance is one of several methods used to reveal infection history. We examined serum from 14 captive chimpanzees in Japanese primate research institutes for antibodies against 62 human pathogens and 1 chimpanzee-borne infectious disease. Antibodies tested positive against 29 pathogens at high or low prevalence in the chimpanzees. These results suggest that the proportions of human-borne infections may reflect the chimpanzee's history, management system in the institute, or regional epidemics. Furthermore, captive chimpanzees are highly susceptible to human pathogens, and their induced antibodies reveal not only their history of infection, but also the possibility of protection against human pathogens. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 26% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 11 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 29 | 27% |
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 30 August 2012.
All research outputs
#2,920,328
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#210
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,262
of 167,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 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 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 167,807 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.