↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Anti-Rosetting Agents against Malaria Parasites under Physiological Flow Conditions

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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 Effect of Anti-Rosetting Agents against Malaria Parasites under Physiological Flow Conditions
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0073999
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne Adams, J. Alexandra Rowe

Abstract

Rosetting remains the dominant malaria parasite adhesion phenotype associated with severe disease and pathogenicity in Africa. The formation of rosettes, whereby a Plasmodium falciparum infected erythrocyte (IE) adheres to two or more non-IEs, is thought to facilitate the occlusion of microvascular blood vessels by adhering to host endothelial cells and other bound IEs. Current methods of determining the rosette-disrupting capabilities of antibodies/drugs have focused on static assays. As IEs in vivo are exposed to shear stresses within the microvasculature, the effect of flow conditions on rosetting requires further examination. This study establishes a new rosetting flow assay using a closed perfusion system together with inverted fluorescence microscopy and image analysis, and confirms previous reports that rosettes exist under shear stresses equivalent to those present in the microvasculature (0.5-1.0 dyn/cm(2)). Furthermore, we tested the effectiveness of rosette-disrupting PfEMP1 antibodies, heparin and fucoidan over a range of concentrations on two P. falciparum strains, and found no statistically significant differences between the results of static and flow assays. The new flow assay is a valuable addition to the tools available to study rosetting. However, the static assay has good predictive value and remains useful as the standard screening test for rosette-disrupting interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
India 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 39 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 6 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 October 2013.
All research outputs
#15,327,056
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#131,630
of 210,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,368
of 184,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,824
of 4,881 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 184,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,881 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.