↓ Skip to main content

Babesia vesperuginis in insectivorous bats from China

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Babesia vesperuginis in insectivorous bats from China
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13071-018-2902-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hui-Ju Han, Jian-Wei Liu, Hong-Ling Wen, Xiang-Rong Qin, Min Zhao, Li-Jun Wang, Chuan-Min Zhou, Rui Qi, Hao Yu, Xue-Jie Yu

Abstract

To increase understanding of human bacterial and parasitic pathogens in bats, we investigated the prevalence of Babesia spp., Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma spp. and Coxiella burnetii in bats from China. Bats were captured from Mengyin County, Shandong Province of China using nets. DNA was extracted from the blood and spleen of bats for molecular detection of Babesia spp., Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma spp. and Coxiella burnetii with specific primers for each species. A total of 146 spleen samples and 107 blood samples of insectivorous bats, which belonged to 6 species within two families, were collected from Mengyin County, Shandong Province of China. We found that two Eptesicus serotinus (2/15, 13.3%) were positive for Babesia vesperuginis. We were unable to detect genomic sequences for Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma spp. and Coxiella burnetii. To our knowledge, our study showed for the first time the presence of Babesia vesperuginis in Eptesicus serotinus collected from China, suggesting that Babesia vesperuginis has a broad host species and geographical distribution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Student > Bachelor 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 32%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#8,093,948
of 14,051,565 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#1,767
of 3,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,234
of 277,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,051,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,766 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 277,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them