↓ Skip to main content

The utility of Plasmodium berghei as a rodent model for anti-merozoite malaria vaccine assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
The utility of Plasmodium berghei as a rodent model for anti-merozoite malaria vaccine assessment
Published in
Scientific Reports, April 2013
DOI 10.1038/srep01706
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna L. Goodman, Emily K. Forbes, Andrew R. Williams, Alexander D. Douglas, Simone C. de Cassan, Karolis Bauza, Sumi Biswas, Matthew D. J. Dicks, David Llewellyn, Anne C. Moore, Chris J. Janse, Blandine M. Franke-Fayard, Sarah C. Gilbert, Adrian V. S. Hill, Richard J. Pleass, Simon J. Draper

Abstract

Rodent malaria species Plasmodium yoelii and P. chabaudi have been widely used to validate vaccine approaches targeting blood-stage merozoite antigens. However, increasing data suggest the P. berghei rodent malaria may be able to circumvent vaccine-induced anti-merozoite responses. Here we confirm a failure to protect against P. berghei, despite successful antibody induction against leading merozoite antigens using protein-in-adjuvant or viral vectored vaccine delivery. No subunit vaccine approach showed efficacy in mice following immunization and challenge with the wild-type P. berghei strains ANKA or NK65, or against a chimeric parasite line encoding a merozoite antigen from P. falciparum. Protection was not improved in knockout mice lacking the inhibitory Fc receptor CD32b, nor against a Δsmac P. berghei parasite line with a non-sequestering phenotype. An improved understanding of the mechanisms responsible for protection, or failure of protection, against P. berghei merozoites could guide the development of an efficacious vaccine against P. falciparum.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 121 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 19%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 7 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 15 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 23 18%

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 18 September 2013.
All research outputs
#9,986,629
of 12,476,446 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#40,784
of 57,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,022
of 155,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#167
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,476,446 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 57,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 155,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.