↓ Skip to main content

Application of Nanotrap technology for high sensitivity measurement of urinary outer surface protein A carboxyl-terminus domain in early stage Lyme borreliosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 3,000)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Application of Nanotrap technology for high sensitivity measurement of urinary outer surface protein A carboxyl-terminus domain in early stage Lyme borreliosis
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12967-015-0701-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruben Magni, Benjamin H. Espina, Ketul Shah, Benjamin Lepene, Christine Mayuga, Temple A. Douglas, Virginia Espina, Sally Rucker, Ross Dunlap, Emanuel F. III Petricoin, Mary Frekko Kilavos, Donald M. Poretz, Gilbert R. Irwin, Samuel M. Shor, Lance A. Liotta, Alessandra Luchini

Abstract

Prompt antibiotic treatment of early stage Lyme borreliosis (LB) prevents progression to severe multisystem disease. There is a clinical need to improve the diagnostic specificity of early stage Lyme assays in the period prior to the mounting of a robust serology response. Using a novel analyte harvesting nanotechnology, Nanotrap particles, we evaluated urinary Borrelia Outer surface protein A (OspA) C-terminus peptide in early stage LB before and after treatment, and in patients suspected of late stage disseminated LB. We employed Nanotrap particles to concentrate urinary OspA and used a highly specific anti-OspA monoclonal antibody (mAb) as a detector of the C-terminus peptides. We mapped the mAb epitope to a narrow specific OspA C-terminal domain OspA236-239 conserved across infectious Borrelia species but with no homology to human proteins and no cross-reactivity with relevant viral and non-Borrelia bacterial proteins. 268 urine samples from patients being evaluated for all categories of LB were collected in a LB endemic area. The urinary OspA assay, blinded to outcome, utilized Nanotrap particle pre-processing, western blotting to evaluate the OspA molecular size, and OspA peptide competition for confirmation. OspA test characteristics: sensitivity 1.7 pg/mL (lowest limit of detection), % coefficient of variation (CV) = 8 %, dynamic range 1.7-30 pg/mL. Pre-treatment, 24/24 newly diagnosed patients with an erythema migrans (EM) rash were positive for urinary OspA while false positives for asymptomatic patients were 0/117 (Chi squared p < 10(-6)). For 10 patients who exhibited persistence of the EM rash during the course of antibiotic therapy, 10/10 were positive for urinary OspA. Urinary OspA of 8/8 patients switched from detectable to undetectable following symptom resolution post-treatment. Specificity of the urinary OspA test for the clinical symptoms was 40/40. Specificity of the urinary OspA antigen test for later serology outcome was 87.5 % (21 urinary OspA positive/24 serology positive, Chi squared p = 4.072e(-15)). 41 of 100 patients under surveillance for persistent LB in an endemic area were positive for urinary OspA protein. OspA urinary shedding was strongly linked to concurrent active symptoms (e.g. EM rash and arthritis), while resolution of these symptoms after therapy correlated with urinary conversion to OspA negative.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 24%
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 148. 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 02 September 2018.
All research outputs
#135,073
of 15,917,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#24
of 3,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,278
of 287,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2
of 293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,917,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 287,366 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 293 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 99% of its contemporaries.