↓ Skip to main content

Helicobacter pylori with East Asian-type cag PAI genes is more virulent than strains with Western-type in some cag PAI genes

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Title
Helicobacter pylori with East Asian-type cag PAI genes is more virulent than strains with Western-type in some cag PAI genes
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, April 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.12.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao-yan Yuan, Jin-Jun Yan, Ya-chao Yang, Chun-mei Wu, Yan Hu, Jian-li Geng

Abstract

The severity of Helicobacter pylori-related disease is correlated with the presence and integrity of a cag pathogenicity island (cagPAI). cagPAI genotype may have a modifying effect on the pathogenic potential of the infecting strain. After analyzing the sequences of cagPAI genes, some strains with the East Asian-type cagPAI genes were selected for further analysis to examine the association between the diversity of the cagPAI genes and the virulence of H. pylori. The results showed that gastric mucosal inflammatory cell infiltration was significantly higher in patients with East Asian-type cagPAI genes H. pylori strain compared with mosaicism cagPAI genes H. pylori strain (p<0.05). H. pylori strains with the East Asian-type cagPAI genes were closely associated with IL-8 secretion in vitro and in vivo compared with H. pylori strains with the mosaicism cagPAI genes (p<0.01). H. pylori strains with East Asian-type cagPAI genes are able to strongly translocate CagA to host cells. These results suggest that H. pylori strains with East Asian-type cagPAI genes are more virulent than the strains of cagPAI gene/genes that are Western type.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%

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 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#10,978,502
of 12,355,257 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#323
of 363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,505
of 332,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 332,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.