↓ Skip to main content

Exploratory Study on Th1 Epitope-Induced Protective Immunity against Coxiella burnetii Infection

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Exploratory Study on Th1 Epitope-Induced Protective Immunity against Coxiella burnetii Infection
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0087206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaolu Xiong, Yong Qi, Jun Jiao, Wenping Gong, Changsong Duan, Bohai Wen

Abstract

Coxiella burnetii is a Gram-negative bacterium that causes Q fever in humans. In the present study, 131 candidate peptides were selected from the major immunodominant proteins (MIPs) of C. burnetii due to their high-affinity binding capacity for the MHC class II molecule H2 I-A(b) based on bioinformatic analyses. Twenty-two of the candidate peptides with distinct MIP epitopes were well recognized by the IFN-γ recall responses of CD4(+) T cells from mice immunized with parental proteins in an ELISPOT assay. In addition, 7 of the 22 peptides could efficiently induce CD4(+) T cells from mice immunized with C. burnetii to rapidly proliferate and significantly increase IFN-γ production. Significantly higher levels of IL-2, IL-12p70, IFN-γ, and TNF-α were also detected in serum from mice immunized with a pool of the 7 peptides. Immunization with the pool of 7 peptides, but not the individual peptides, conferred a significant protection against C. burnetii infection in mice, suggesting that these Th1 peptides could work together to efficiently activate CD4(+) T cells to produce the Th1-type immune response against C. burnetii infection. These observations could contribute to the rational design of molecular vaccines for Q fever.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,870,603
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#72,545
of 206,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,120
of 316,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,503
of 5,613 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 206,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 316,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,613 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.