↓ Skip to main content

Phenotypic Differences between Asian and African Lineage Zika Viruses in Human Neural Progenitor Cells

Overview of attention for article published in mSphere, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
118 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.
Article details
Title
Phenotypic Differences between Asian and African Lineage Zika Viruses in Human Neural Progenitor Cells
Published in
mSphere, July 2017
DOI 10.1128/msphere.00292-17
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Recent Zika virus (ZIKV) infections have been associated with a range of neurological complications, in particular congenital microcephaly. Human neural progenitor cells (hNPCs) are thought to play an important role in the pathogenesis of microcephaly, and experimental ZIKV infection of hNPCs has been shown to induce cell death. However, the infection efficiency and rate of cell death have varied between studies, which might be related to intrinsic differences between African and Asian lineage ZIKV strains. Therefore, we determined the replication kinetics, including infection efficiency, burst size, and ability to induce cell death, of two Asian and two African ZIKV strains. African ZIKV strains replicated to higher titers in Vero cells, human glioblastoma (U87MG) cells, human neuroblastoma (SK-N-SH) cells, and hNPCs than Asian ZIKV strains. Furthermore, infection with Asian ZIKV strains did not result in significant cell death early after infection, whereas infection with African ZIKV strains resulted in high percentages of cell death in hNPCs. The differences between African and Asian lineage ZIKV strains highlight the importance of including relevant ZIKV strains to study the pathogenesis of congenital microcephaly and caution against extrapolation of experimental data obtained using historical African ZIKV strains to the current outbreak. Finally, the fact that Asian ZIKV strains infect only a minority of cells with a relatively low burst size together with the lack of early cell death induction might contribute to its ability to cause chronic infections within the central nervous system (CNS). IMPORTANCE The mechanism by which ZIKV causes a range of neurological complications, especially congenital microcephaly, is not well understood. The fact that congenital microcephaly is associated with Asian lineage ZIKV strains raises the question of why this was not discovered earlier. One possible explanation is that Asian and African ZIKV strains differ in their abilities to infect cells of the CNS and to cause neurodevelopmental problems. Here, we show that Asian ZIKV strains infect and induce cell death in human neural progenitor cells-which are important target cells in the development of congenital microcephaly-less efficiently than African ZIKV strains. These features of Asian ZIKV strains likely contribute to their ability to cause chronic infections, often observed in congenital microcephaly cases. It is therefore likely that phenotypic differences between ZIKV strains could be, at least in part, responsible for the ability of Asian ZIKV strains to cause congenital microcephaly.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 10%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 34 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,239,656
of 34,642,327 outputs
Outputs from mSphere
#923
of 2,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,867
of 358,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from mSphere
#22
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,642,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 358,168 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 62% of its contemporaries.