↓ Skip to main content

Tick capillary feeding for the study of proteins involved in tick-pathogen interactions as potential antigens for the control of tick infestation and pathogen infection

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Tick capillary feeding for the study of proteins involved in tick-pathogen interactions as potential antigens for the control of tick infestation and pathogen infection
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-3305-7-42
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra Antunes, Octavio Merino, Juan Mosqueda, Juan A Moreno-Cid, Lesley Bell-Sakyi, Rennos Fragkoudis, Sabine Weisheit, José M Pérez de la Lastra, Pilar Alberdi, Ana Domingos, José de la Fuente

Abstract

Ticks represent a significant health risk to animals and humans due to the variety of pathogens they can transmit during feeding. The traditional use of chemicals to control ticks has serious drawbacks, including the selection of acaricide-resistant ticks and environmental contamination with chemical residues. Vaccination with the tick midgut antigen BM86 was shown to be a good alternative for cattle tick control. However, results vary considerably between tick species and geographic location. Therefore, new antigens are required for the development of vaccines controlling both tick infestations and pathogen infection/transmission. Tick proteins involved in tick-pathogen interactions may provide good candidate protective antigens for these vaccines, but appropriate screening procedures are needed to select the best candidates.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 76 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 49%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 15 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,230,558
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#4,835
of 5,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,638
of 305,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#181
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 305,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.