↓ Skip to main content

Post-Genomics and Vaccine Improvement for Leishmania

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

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
Post-Genomics and Vaccine Improvement for Leishmania
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00467
Pubmed ID
Authors

Negar Seyed, Tahereh Taheri, Sima Rafati

Abstract

Leishmaniasis is a parasitic disease that primarily affects Asia, Africa, South America, and the Mediterranean basin. Despite extensive efforts to develop an effective prophylactic vaccine, no promising vaccine is available yet. However, recent advancements in computational vaccinology on the one hand and genome sequencing approaches on the other have generated new hopes in vaccine development. Computational genome mining for new vaccine candidates is known as reverse vaccinology and is believed to further extend the current list of Leishmania vaccine candidates. Reverse vaccinology can also reduce the intrinsic risks associated with live attenuated vaccines. Individual epitopes arranged in tandem as polytopes are also a possible outcome of reverse genome mining. Here, we will briefly compare reverse vaccinology with conventional vaccinology in respect to Leishmania vaccine, and we will discuss how it influences the aforementioned topics. We will also introduce new in vivo models that will bridge the gap between human and laboratory animal models in future studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 18 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#13,771,491
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#11,230
of 24,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,201
of 301,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#275
of 544 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 301,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 544 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.