↓ Skip to main content

Pertussis vaccines and the challenge of inducing durable immunity

Overview of attention for article published in Current Opinion in Immunology, August 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Pertussis vaccines and the challenge of inducing durable immunity
Published in
Current Opinion in Immunology, August 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.coi.2015.05.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason M Warfel, Kathryn M Edwards

Abstract

Pertussis has re-emerged as an important public health concern. In the 1990s whole-cell pertussis vaccines were replaced with less reactogenic acellular vaccines consisting of purified pertussis components. However, recent data show that protection from acellular pertussis vaccines is not long-lasting. Antibody levels wane rapidly following vaccination, likely a result of the inability of acellular pertussis antigens to stimulate long-lasting B cell memory. In addition, T cell responses to acellular pertussis vaccines are mixed Th2/Th1, while whole-cell pertussis vaccination and infection stimulate Th17 responses, important for host defense against extracellular mucosal pathogens. Consistent with this T cell skewing, acellular vaccines did not prevent colonization or transmission following challenge in nonhuman primates while whole-cell vaccinated and previously infected animals cleared the infection more rapidly.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 4%
France 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 52 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Researcher 8 14%
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 9 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,858,503
of 15,147,986 outputs
Outputs from Current Opinion in Immunology
#124
of 1,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,252
of 233,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Opinion in Immunology
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,147,986 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,627 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 233,341 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.