↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Comparison of subcutaneous versus intranasal immunization of male koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) for induction of mucosal and systemic immunity against Chlamydia pecorum
Published in
Vaccine, January 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.052
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Chlamydia pecorum infections are debilitating in the koala, contributing significantly to morbidity and mortality, with current antibiotic treatments having minimal success and adversely affecting gut microflora. This, combined with the sometimes-asymptomatic nature of the infection, suggests that an efficacious anti-chlamydial vaccine is required to control chlamydial infections in the koala. To date vaccination studies have focused primarily on female koalas, however, given the physiological differences between male and female reproductive tracts, we tested the efficacy of a vaccine in 12 captive male koalas. We evaluated the potential of both subcutaneous and intranasal vaccine delivery to elicit mucosal immunity in male koalas. Our results showed that both intranasal and subcutaneous delivery of a vaccine consisting of C. pecorum major outer membrane protein (MOMP) and the adjuvant immunostimulating complex (ISC) induced significant immune responses in male koalas. Subcutaneous immunization elicited stronger cell-mediated responses in peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL), and greater plasma antibody levels whereas the intranasal immunization elicited stronger humoral responses in urogenital tract (UGT) secretions. This is the first time a Chlamydia vaccine has been tested in the male koala and the first assessment of a mucosal vaccination route in this species. Our results suggest that vaccination of male koalas can elicit mucosal immunity and could contribute to the long-term survivability of wild populations of the koala.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 30 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 %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 20%
Environmental Science 3 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Vaccine
#14,743
of 16,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,808
of 359,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vaccine
#108
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 359,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.