↓ Skip to main content

An inexpensive open source 3D-printed membrane feeder for human malaria transmission studies

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
41 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
An inexpensive open source 3D-printed membrane feeder for human malaria transmission studies
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2436-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathrin Witmer, Ellie Sherrard-Smith, Ursula Straschil, Mark Tunnicliff, Jake Baum, Michael Delves

Abstract

The study of malaria transmission requires the experimental infection of mosquitoes with Plasmodium gametocytes. In the laboratory, this is achieved using artificial membrane feeding apparatus that simulate body temperature and skin of the host, and so permit mosquito feeding on reconstituted gametocyte-containing blood. Membrane feeders either use electric heating elements or complex glass chambers to warm the infected blood; both of which are expensive to purchase and can only be sourced from a handful of specialized companies. Presented and tested here is a membrane feeder that can be inexpensively printed using 3D-printing technology. Using the Plasmodium falciparum laboratory strain NF54, three independent standard membrane feeding assays (SMFAs) were performed comparing the 3D-printed feeder against a commercial glass feeder. Exflagellation rates did not differ between the two feeders. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found in the oocyst load nor oocyst intensity of Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes (mean oocyst range 1.3-6.2 per mosquito; infection prevalence range 41-79%). Open source provision of the design files of the 3D-printed feeder will facilitate a wider range of laboratories to perform SMFAs in laboratory and field settings, and enable them to freely customize the design to their own requirements.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#618,339
of 15,389,073 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#90
of 4,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,392
of 278,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,389,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 278,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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