↓ Skip to main content

Conserved signatures indicate HIV-1 transmission is under strong selection and thus is not a “stochastic” process

Overview of attention for article published in Retrovirology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Conserved signatures indicate HIV-1 transmission is under strong selection and thus is not a “stochastic” process
Published in
Retrovirology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12977-016-0326-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mileidy Gonzalez, Anthony L. DeVico, John L. Spouge

Abstract

Recently, Oberle et al. published a paper in Retrovirology evaluating the question of whether selection plays a role in HIV transmission. The Oberle study found no obvious genotypic or phenotypic differences between donors and recipients of epidemiologically linked pairs from the Swiss cohort. Thus, Oberle et al. characterized HIV-1 B transmission as largely "stochastic", an imprecise and potentially misleading term. Here, we re-analyzed their data and placed them in the context of transmission data for over 20 other human and animal trials. The present study finds that the transmitted/founder (T/F) viruses from the Swiss cohort show the same non-random genetic signatures conserved in 118 HIV-1, 40 SHIV, and 12 SIV T/F viruses previously published by two independent groups. We provide alternative interpretations of the Swiss cohort data and conclude that the sequences of their donor viruses lacked variability at the specific sites where other studies were able to demonstrate genotypic selection. Oberle et al. observed no phenotypic selection in vitro, so the problem of determining the in vivo phenotypic mechanisms that cause genotypic selection in HIV remains open.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 38%
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Master 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 4 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Unknown 2 25%

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 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,407,308
of 10,677,937 outputs
Outputs from Retrovirology
#383
of 540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,198
of 258,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Retrovirology
#17
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,677,937 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 258,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.