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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adaptive Immunity to Francisella tularensis and Considerations for Vaccine Development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00115 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lydia M. Roberts, Daniel A. Powell, Jeffrey A. Frelinger |
| Abstract |
Francisella tularensis is an intracellular bacterium that causes the disease tularemia. There are several subspecies of F. tularensis whose ability to cause disease varies in humans. The most virulent subspecies, tularensis, is a Tier One Select Agent and a potential bioweapon. Although considerable effort has made to generate efficacious tularemia vaccines, to date none have been licensed for use in the United States. Despite the lack of a tularemia vaccine, we have learned a great deal about the adaptive immune response the underlies protective immunity. Herein, we detail the animal models commonly used to study tularemia and their recapitulation of human disease, the field's current understanding of vaccine-mediated protection, and discuss the challenges associated with new vaccine development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 11 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 13% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#4,930
of 6,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,931
of 329,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#94
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 329,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.