↓ Skip to main content

Predicting RTS,S Vaccine-Mediated Protection from Transcriptomes in a Malaria-Challenge Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Predicting RTS,S Vaccine-Mediated Protection from Transcriptomes in a Malaria-Challenge Clinical Trial
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00557
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert A. van den Berg, Margherita Coccia, W. Ripley Ballou, Kent E. Kester, Christian F. Ockenhouse, Johan Vekemans, Erik Jongert, Arnaud M. Didierlaurent, Robbert G. van der Most

Abstract

The RTS,S candidate malaria vaccine can protect against controlled human malaria infection (CHMI), but how protection is achieved remains unclear. Here, we have analyzed longitudinal peripheral blood transcriptome and immunogenicity data from a clinical efficacy trial in which healthy adults received three RTS,S doses 4 weeks apart followed by CHMI 2 weeks later. Multiway partial least squares discriminant analysis (N-PLS-DA) of transcriptome data identified 110 genes that could be used in predictive models of protection. Among the 110 genes, 42 had known immune-related functions, including 29 that were related to the NF-κB-signaling pathway and 14 to the IFN-γ-signaling pathway. Post-dose 3 serum IFN-γ concentrations were also correlated with protection; and N-PLS-DA of IFN-γ-signaling pathway transcriptome data selected almost all (44/45) of the representative genes for predictive models of protection. Hence, the identification of the NF-κB and IFN-γ pathways provides further insight into how vaccine-mediated protection may be achieved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 11 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 October 2020.
All research outputs
#4,830,589
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#5,327
of 31,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,067
of 326,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#86
of 380 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 326,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 380 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.