↓ Skip to main content

West Nile Virus in American White Pelican Chicks: Transmission, Immunity, and Survival

Overview of attention for article published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
West Nile Virus in American White Pelican Chicks: Transmission, Immunity, and Survival
Published in
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, June 2013
DOI 10.4269/ajtmh.12-0408
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alisa J. Bartos, Erik K. Hofmeister, Pamela J. Pietz, Marsha A. Sovada

Abstract

West Nile virus (WNV) causes significant mortality of American White Pelican chicks at northern plains colonies. We tested oropharyngeal/cloacal swabs from moribund chicks for shed WNV. Such shedding could enable chick-to-chick transmission and help explain why WNV spreads rapidly in colonies. WNV was detected on swabs from 11% of chicks in 2006 and 52% of chicks in 2007; however, viral titers were low. Before onset of WNV mortality, we tested blood from < 3-week-old chicks for antibodies to WNV; 5% of chicks were seropositive, suggesting passive transfer of maternal antibodies. Among near-fledged chicks, 41% tested positive for anti-WNV antibodies, indicating that they survived infection. Among years and colonies, cumulative incidence of WNV in chicks varied from 28% to 81%, whereas the proportion of chicks surviving WNV (i.e., seropositive) was 64-75%. Our data revealed that WNV kills chicks that likely would fledge in the absence of WNV, that infection of chicks is pervasive, and that significant numbers of chicks survive infection.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 41%
Student > Bachelor 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 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 28 March 2013.
All research outputs
#11,284,219
of 14,237,064 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
#5,414
of 6,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,229
of 164,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
#51
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,237,064 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 6,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 164,981 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 72 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.