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 |
Artificial blood feeding for Culicidae colony maintenance in laboratories: does the blood source condition matter?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1678-9946201860045 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luciana Dos Santos Dias, Luíz Guilherme Soares da Rocha Bauzer, José Bento Pereira Lima |
| Abstract |
Culicidae colonization in laboratory is paramount to conduct studies aiming at a better understanding of mosquitoes' capacity to transmit pathogens that cause deadly diseases. Colonization requires female blood feeding, a necessary step for maturation of female's oocytes. Direct blood feeding on anesthetized mammals implies in a number of disadvantages when compared to artificial blood feeding. Consequently, laboratories worldwide have been trying to -feed female mosquitoes artificially in order to replace direct feeding. In this study, we compared the effects of direct blood feeding and artificial blood feeding on important life traits of three Culicidae species. Artificial feeding was performed using citrated or defibrinated sheep blood and citrated or defibrinated rabbit blood. Direct feeding was performed using anesthetized guinea pigs as the blood source and the experiment control. Results indicated that artificial feeding using sheep blood was not good enough to justify its use in the maintenance of laboratory colonies of Culicidae. However, artificial feeding using rabbit blood maintained a recovery rate always very close to the control, especially when blood was citrated. We concluded that artificial feeding using citrated rabbit blood can substitute direct feeding on mammals reducing the use of animals, eliminating the need to maintain a bioterium in the laboratory and reducing costs in scientific researches involving Culicidae vectors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 20% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 20% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,706,233
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#375
of 788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,112
of 348,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 788 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 348,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.