↓ Skip to main content

Molecular characterization of China human rabies vaccine strains

Overview of attention for article published in Virologica Sinica, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Molecular characterization of China human rabies vaccine strains
Published in
Virologica Sinica, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12250-013-3314-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoyan Tao, Na Han, Zhenyang Guo, Qing Tang, Simon Rayner, Guodong Liang

Abstract

To understand the molecular characteristics of China human rabies vaccine strains, we report the full-length genome of the aG strain and present a comprehensive analysis of this strain and almost all available lyssavirus genomes (58 strains) from GenBank (as of Jan 6, 2011). It is generally considered that the G protein plays a predominant role in determining the pathogenicity of the virus, to this end we predicted the tertiary structure of the G protein of aG strain, CTN181 strain and wild type strain HN10 based on the crystal structure of Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) G. The predicted RABV G structure has a similar topology to VSV G and the ectodomain can be divided into 4 distinct domains DI - DIV. By mapping the characterized mutations to this structure between China vaccine strains and their close street strains, we speculate that the G303(P-H) mutations of CTN181 and HN10 causing DII 3D change may be associated with the II attenuated virulence in both strains. Specifically, the two signature mutations (G165P and G231P) in the aG strain are within ßsheets, suggesting that both sites are of structural importance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Chemistry 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 April 2013.
All research outputs
#18,336,865
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from Virologica Sinica
#363
of 566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,087
of 199,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virologica Sinica
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 199,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.