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 |
Low potential for mechanical transmission of Ebola virus via house flies (Musca domestica)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Parasites & Vectors, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13071-017-2149-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew D. Haddow, Farooq Nasar, Christopher W. Schellhase, Roger D. Moon, Susana L. Padilla, Xiankun Zeng, Suzanne E. Wollen-Roberts, Joshua D. Shamblin, Elizabeth C. Grimes, Justine M. Zelko, Kenneth J. Linthicum, Sina Bavari, M. Louise Pitt, John C. Trefry |
| Abstract |
Ebola virus (EBOV) infection results in high morbidity and mortality and is primarily transmitted in communities by contact with infectious bodily fluids. While clinical and experimental evidence indicates that EBOV is transmitted via mucosal exposure, the ability of non-biting muscid flies to mechanically transmit EBOV following exposure to the face had not been assessed. To investigate this transmission route, house flies (Musca domestica Linnaeus) were used to deliver an EBOV/blood mixture to the ocular/nasal/oral facial mucosa of four cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis Raffles). Following exposure, macaques were monitored for evidence of infection through the conclusion of the study, days 57 and 58. We found no evidence of systemic infection in any of the exposed macaques. The results of this study indicate that there is a low potential for the mechanical transmission of EBOV via house flies - the conditions in this study were not sufficient to initiate infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 | 8 | 36% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 57% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,230,429
of 25,542,788 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#677
of 6,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,547
of 324,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#16
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,542,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 324,889 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.