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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 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 | 140 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 18% |
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 38 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 17 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 34 | 23% |
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
#18,345,822
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#92,586
of 122,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,166
of 195,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#382
of 474 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 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 122,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 195,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 474 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.