↓ Skip to main content

An Overview of Challenges Limiting the Design of Protective Mucosal Vaccines for Finfish

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
91 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 Overview of Challenges Limiting the Design of Protective Mucosal Vaccines for Finfish
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00542
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hetron Mweemba Munang’andu, Stephen Mutoloki, Øystein Evensen

Abstract

Research in mucosal vaccination in finfish has gained prominence in the last decade in pursuit of mucosal vaccines that would lengthen the duration of protective immunity in vaccinated fish. However, injectable vaccines have continued to dominate in the vaccination of finfish because they are perceived to be more protective than mucosal vaccines. Therefore, it has become important to identify the factors that limit developing protective mucosal vaccines in finfish as an overture to identifying key areas that require optimization in mucosal vaccine design. Some of the factors that limit the success for designing protective mucosal vaccines for finfish identified in this review include the lack optimized protective antigen doses for mucosal vaccines, absence of immunostimulants able to enhance the performance of non-replicative mucosal vaccines, reduction of systemic antibodies due to prolonged exposure to oral vaccination and the lack of predefined correlates of protective immunity for use in the optimization of newly developed mucosal vaccines. This review also points out the need to develop prime-boost vaccination regimes able to induce long-term protective immunity in vaccinated fish. By overcoming some of the obstacles identified herein, it is anticipated that future mucosal vaccines shall be designed to induce long-term protective immunity in finfish.

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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 25%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Professor 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 33 36%
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 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#22,945,287
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#27,826
of 32,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,390
of 294,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#148
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,016 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 294,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.