| Title |
Variation in Aedes aegypti Mosquito Competence for Zika Virus Transmission - Volume 23, Number 4—April 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2304.161484 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher M. Roundy, Sasha R. Azar, Shannan L. Rossi, Jing H. Huang, Grace Leal, Ruimei Yun, Ildefonso Fernandez-Salas, Christopher J. Vitek, Igor A.D. Paploski, Uriel Kitron, Guilherme S. Ribeiro, Kathryn A. Hanley, Scott C. Weaver, Nikos Vasilakis |
| Abstract |
To test whether Zika virus has adapted for more efficient transmission by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, leading to recent urban outbreaks, we fed mosquitoes from Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and the United States artificial blood meals containing 1 of 3 Zika virus strains (Senegal, Cambodia, Mexico) and monitored infection, dissemination, and virus in saliva. Contrary to our hypothesis, Cambodia and Mexica strains were less infectious than the Senegal strain. Only mosquitoes from the Dominican Republic transmitted the Cambodia and Mexica strains. However, blood meals from viremic mice were more infectious than artificial blood meals of comparable doses; the Cambodia strain was not transmitted by mosquitoes from Brazil after artificial blood meals, whereas 61% transmission occurred after a murine blood meal (saliva titers up to 4 log10 infectious units/collection). Although regional origins of vector populations and virus strain influence transmission efficiency, Ae. aegypti mosquitoes appear to be competent vectors of Zika virus in several regions of the Americas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 31% |
| Brazil | 3 | 12% |
| Argentina | 3 | 12% |
| Mexico | 2 | 8% |
| Honduras | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 77% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 181 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 39 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 13% |
| Unknown | 45 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 45 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 31 | 17% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 17 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 11% |
| Unknown | 49 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,244,864
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,399
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,524
of 323,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#26
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 323,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.