↓ Skip to main content

Lethality and pathogenesis of airborne infection with filoviruses in A129 α/β −/− interferon receptor-deficient mice

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Microbiology, August 2011
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
reddit
5 Redditors
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Lethality and pathogenesis of airborne infection with filoviruses in A129 α/β −/− interferon receptor-deficient mice
Published in
Journal of Medical Microbiology, August 2011
DOI 10.1099/jmm.0.036210-0
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Normal immunocompetent mice are not susceptible to non-adapted filoviruses. There are therefore two strategies available to establish a murine model of filovirus infection: adaptation of the virus to the host or the use of genetically modified mice that are susceptible to the virus. A number of knockout (KO) strains of mice with defects in either their adaptive or innate immunity are susceptible to non-adapted filoviruses. In this study, A129 α/β -/- interferon receptor-deficient KO mice, strain A129 IFN-α/β -/-, were used to determine the lethality of a range of filoviruses, including Lake Victoria marburgvirus (MARV), Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV), Sudan ebolavirus (SEBOV), Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) and Côte d'Ivoire ebolavirus (CIEBOV), administered by using intraperitoneal (IP) or aerosol routes of infection. One hundred percent mortality was observed in all groups of KO mice that were administered with a range of challenge doses of MARV and ZEBOV by either IP or aerosol routes. Mean time to death for both routes was dose-dependent and ranged from 5.4 to 7.4 days in the IP injection challenge, and from 10.2 to 13 days in the aerosol challenge. The lethal dose (50 % tissue culture infective dose, TCID(50)) of ZEBOV for KO mice was <1 TCID(50) ml(-1) when administered by either the IP or aerosol route of infection; for MARV the lethal dose was <1 TCID(50) ml(-1) by the IP route of infection and <10 TCID(50) ml(-1) by the aerosol route. In contrast, there was no mortality after infection with SEBOV or REBOV by either IP or aerosol routes of infection; all the mice lost weight (~15 % loss of group mean body weight with SEBOV and ~7 % with REBOV) but recovered to their original weights by day 14 post-challenge. There was no mortality in mice administered with CIEBOV via the IP route of infection and no clinical signs of infection were observed. The progression of disease was faster following infection with ZEBOV than with MARV but ultimately both viruses caused widespread infection with high titres of the infectious viruses in multiple organs. Histopathological observations were consistent with other animal models and showed widespread organ damage. This study suggests that MARV and ZEBOV are more virulent when administered via the IP route rather than by aerosol infection, although both are highly virulent by either route. The KO mouse may provide a useful model to test potential antiviral therapeutics against wild-type filoviruses.

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 3 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 45 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 %
United Kingdom 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 42 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 27%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 31 March 2020.
All research outputs
#4,890,205
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Microbiology
#386
of 3,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,867
of 167,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Microbiology
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,828 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 167,415 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.