↓ Skip to main content

Identification of Largemouth Bass Virus in the Introduced Northern Snakehead Inhabiting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Identification of Largemouth Bass Virus in the Introduced Northern Snakehead Inhabiting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Published in
Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, August 2013
DOI 10.1080/08997659.2013.799614
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Iwanowicz , Iwanowicz L, Densmore C, Hahn C, McAllister P, Odenkirk J

Abstract

The Northern Snakehead Channa argus is an introduced species that now inhabits the Chesapeake Bay. During a preliminary survey for introduced pathogens possibly harbored by these fish in Virginia waters, a filterable agent was isolated from five specimens that produced cytopathic effects in BF-2 cells. Based on PCR amplification and partial sequencing of the major capsid protein (MCP), DNA polymerase (DNApol), and DNA methyltransferase (Mtase) genes, the isolates were identified as Largemouth Bass virus (LMBV). Nucleotide sequences of the MCP (492 bp) and DNApol (419 pb) genes were 100% identical to those of LMBV. The nucleotide sequence of the Mtase (206 bp) gene was 99.5% identical to that of LMBV, and the single nucleotide substitution did not lead to a predicted amino acid coding change. This is the first report of LMBV from the Northern Snakehead, and provides evidence that noncentrarchid fishes may be susceptible to this virus.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Portugal 1 6%
Zimbabwe 1 6%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 6%
Unknown 13 76%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 35%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 13 August 2013.
All research outputs
#212,925
of 3,635,048 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Aquatic Animal Health
#2
of 27 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,837
of 85,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Aquatic Animal Health
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,635,048 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one scored the same or higher as 25 of them.
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 85,675 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them