The recent Zika virus (ZIKV) epidemic has highlighted the poor knowledge on its physiopathology. Recent studies showed that ZIKV of the Asian lineage, responsible for this international outbreak, causes neuropathology in vitro and in vivo. However, two African lineages exist and the virus is currently found circulating in Africa. The original African strain was also suggested to be neurovirulent but its laboratory usage has been criticized due to its multiple passages. In this study, we compared the French Polynesian (Asian) ZIKV strain to an African strain isolated in Central African Republic and show a difference in infectivity and cellular response between both strains in human neural stem cells and astrocytes. Consistently, this African strain led to a higher infection rate and viral production, as well as stronger cell death and anti-viral response. Our results highlight the need to better characterize the physiopathology and predict neurological impairment associated with African ZIKV.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 02 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,038,026
of 34,332,845 outputs
Outputs from EBioMedicine
#964
of 5,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,060
of 334,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EBioMedicine
#26
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,332,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,086 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 334,065 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
