↓ Skip to main content

The Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin: Separating Good From Evil

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Infectious Diseases, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
240 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
The Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin: Separating Good From Evil
Published in
Journal of Infectious Diseases, April 2017
DOI 10.1093/infdis/jix173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnold S. Monto, Ryan E. Malosh, Joshua G. Petrie, Emily T. Martin

Abstract

The term "Original Antigenic Sin" was coined approximately 60 years ago to describe the imprinting by first influenza type A infection on later antibody response to vaccination. These studies did not suggest reduction in response to current antigens, but instead anamnestic recall of antibody to earlier strains. Then, approximately 40 years ago, it was observed that sequential influenza vaccination might lead to reduced vaccine effectiveness. This conclusion was largely dismissed after an experimental study involving sequential administration of then standard influenza vaccines. Recent observations have revived the sequential vaccination issue and provide convincing evidence that the phenomenon is real. We propose that such reduction in vaccine effectiveness be termed negative "antigenic interaction" given that there is no age cohort effect. In contrast, the potentially positive protective effect of early influenza infection later in life continues to be observed. It is essential that we understand better the immunologic factors underlying both original antigenic sin and negative antigenic interaction to support development of improved influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 240 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 17%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Professor 7 6%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 29 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 27 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 39 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 172. 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 11 October 2023.
All research outputs
#239,218
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#221
of 14,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,015
of 325,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#5
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 325,694 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 95% of its contemporaries.