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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Newcastle Disease Virus in Madagascar: Identification of an Original Genotype Possibly Deriving from a Died Out Ancestor of Genotype IV
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0013987 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olivier F. Maminiaina, Patricia Gil, François-Xavier Briand, Emmanuel Albina, Djénéba Keita, Harentsoaniaina Rasamoelina Andriamanivo, Véronique Chevalier, Renaud Lancelot, Dominique Martinez, R. Rakotondravao, Jean-Joseph Rajaonarison, M. Koko, Abel A. Andriantsimahavandy, Véronique Jestin, Renata Servan de Almeida |
| Abstract |
In Madagascar, Newcastle disease (ND) has become enzootic after the first documented epizootics in 1946, with recurrent annual outbreaks causing mortality up to 40%. Four ND viruses recently isolated in Madagascar were genotypically and pathotypically characterised. By phylogenetic inference based on the F and HN genes, and also full-genome sequence analyses, the NDV Malagasy isolates form a cluster distant enough to constitute a new genotype hereby proposed as genotype XI. This new genotype is presumably deriving from an ancestor close to genotype IV introduced in the island probably more than 50 years ago. Our data show also that all the previously described neutralising epitopes are conserved between Malagasy and vaccine strains. However, the potential implication in vaccination failures of specific amino acid substitutions predominantly found on surface-exposed epitopes of F and HN proteins is discussed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Kenya | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Singapore | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 23% |
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 42% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 11 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,689,585
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#63,919
of 194,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,038
of 99,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#370
of 1,008 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 99,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,008 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 57% of its contemporaries.