↓ Skip to main content

Fish DNA vaccine against infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus: efficacy of various routes of immunisation

Overview of attention for article published in Fish & Shellfish Immunology, November 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
8 patents

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Fish DNA vaccine against infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus: efficacy of various routes of immunisation
Published in
Fish & Shellfish Immunology, November 2000
DOI 10.1006/fsim.2000.0286
Pubmed ID
Authors

Serge Corbeil, Gael Kurath, Scott E Lapatra

Abstract

The DNA vaccine, pIHNVw-G, contains the gene for the glycoprotein (G) of the rhabdovirus infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), a major pathogen of salmon and trout. The relative efficacy of various routes of immunisation with pIHNVw-G was evaluated using 1.8 g rainbow trout fry vaccinated via intramuscular injection, scarification of the skin, intraperitoneal injection, intrabuccal administration, cutaneous particle bombardment using a gene gun, or immersion in water containing DNA vaccine-coated beads. Twenty-seven days after vaccination neutralising antibody titres were determined, and 2 days later groups of vaccinated and control unvaccinated fish were subjected to an IHNV immersion challenge. Results of the virus challenge showed that the intramuscular injection and the gene gun immunisation induced protective immunity in fry, while intraperitoneal injection provided partial protection. Neutralising antibodies were not detected in sera of vaccinated fish regardless of the route of immunisation used, suggesting that cell mediated immunity may be at least partially responsible for the observed protection.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 46%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,798,066
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Fish & Shellfish Immunology
#76
of 4,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,716
of 41,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fish & Shellfish Immunology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,486 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. 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 41,049 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them