| Title |
Reassortant Eurasian Avian-Like Influenza A(H1N1) Virus from a Severely Ill Child, Hunan Province, China, 2015
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2211.160181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wenfei Zhu, Hong Zhang, Xingyu Xiang, Lili Zhong, Lei Yang, Junfeng Guo, Yiran Xie, Fangcai Li, Zhihong Deng, Hong Feng, Yiwei Huang, Shixiong Hu, Xin Xu, Xiaohui Zou, Xiaodan Li, Tian Bai, Yongkun Chen, Zi Li, Junhua Li, Yuelong Shu |
| Abstract |
In 2015, a novel influenza A(H1N1) virus was isolated from a boy in China who had severe pneumonia. The virus was a genetic reassortant of Eurasian avian-like influenza A(H1N1) (EA-H1N1) virus. The hemagglutinin, neuraminidase, and matrix genes of the reassortant virus were highly similar to genes in EA-H1N1 swine influenza viruses, the polybasic 1 and 2, polymerase acidic, and nucleoprotein genes originated from influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, and the nonstructural protein gene derived from classical swine influenza A(H1N1) (CS H1N1) virus. In a mouse model, the reassortant virus, termed influenza A/Hunan/42443/2015(H1N1) virus, showed higher infectivity and virulence than another human EA-H1N1 isolate, influenza A/Jiangsu/1/2011(H1N1) virus. In the respiratory tract of mice, virus replication by influenza A/Hunan/42443/2015(H1N1) virus was substantially higher than that by influenza A/Jiangsu/1/2011(H1N1) virus. Human-to-human transmission of influenza A/Hunan/42443/2015(H1N1) virus has not been detected; however, given the circulation of novel EA-H1N1 viruses in pigs, enhanced surveillance should be instituted among swine and humans. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 17% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,719,584
of 23,978,283 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,904
of 9,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,697
of 314,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#30
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,978,283 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 314,865 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.