↓ Skip to main content

The Immune Response to Sand Fly Salivary Proteins and Its Influence on Leishmania Immunity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
The Immune Response to Sand Fly Salivary Proteins and Its Influence on Leishmania Immunity
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2012.00110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regis Gomes, Fabiano Oliveira

Abstract

Leishmaniasis is a vector-borne disease transmitted by bites of phlebotomine sand flies. During Leishmania transmission, sand fly saliva is co-inoculated with parasites into the skin of the mammalian host. Sand fly saliva consists of roughly thirty different salivary proteins, many with known roles linked to blood feeding facilitation. Apart from the anti-hemostatic capacity of saliva, several sand fly salivary proteins have been shown to be immunogenic. Immunization with a single salivary protein or exposure to uninfected bites was shown to result in a protective immune response against leishmaniasis. Antibodies to saliva were not required for this protection. A strong body of evidence points to the role for saliva-specific T cells producing IFN-γ in the form of a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction at the bite site as the main protective response. Herein, we review the immunity to sand fly salivary proteins in the context of its vector-parasite-host combinations and their vaccine potential, as well as some recent advances to shed light on the mechanism of how an immune response to sand fly saliva protects against leishmaniasis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Morocco 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 131 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 25 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 34%
Immunology and Microbiology 18 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 30 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 May 2012.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#24,737
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,876
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#147
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 250,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.