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 |
Pathogenicity, Transmission and Antigenic Variation of H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00635 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peirong Jiao, Hui Song, Xiaoke Liu, Yafen Song, Jin Cui, Siyu Wu, Jiaqi Ye, Nanan Qu, Tiemin Zhang, Ming Liao |
| Abstract |
H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) was one of the most important avian diseases in poultry production of China, especially in Guangdong province. In recent years, new H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIV) still emerged constantly, although all poultry in China were immunized with H5N1 vaccinations compulsorily. To better understand the pathogenicity and transmission of dominant clades of the H5N1 HPAIVs in chicken from Guangdong in 2012, we chose a clade 7.2 avian influenza virus named A/Chicken/China/G2/2012(H5N1) (G2) and a clade 2.3.2.1 avian influenza virus named A/Duck/China/G3/2012(H5N1) (G3) in our study. Our results showed that the chickens inoculated with 10(3) EID50 of G2 or G3 viruses all died, and the titers of virus replication detected in several visceral organs were high but different. In the naive contact groups, virus shedding was not detected in G2 group and all chickens survived, but virus shedding was detected in G3 group and all chickens died. These results showed that the two clades of H5N1 HPAIVs had high pathogenicity in chickens and the contact transmission of them was different in chickens. The results of cross reactive HI assay showed that antigens of G2 and G3 were very different from those of current commercial vaccines isolates (Re-4, Re-6, and D7). And to evaluate the protective efficacy of three vaccines against most isolates form Guangdong belonging to clade 2.3.2.1 in 2012, G3 was chosen to challenge the three vaccines such as Re-4, Re-6, and D7. First, chickens were immunized with 0.3 ml Re-4, Re-6, and D7 inactivated vaccines by intramuscular injection, respectively, and then challenged with 10(6) EID50 of G3 on day 28 post-vaccination. The D7 vaccine had 100% protection against G3 for chickens, the Re-6 vaccine had 88.9%, and the Re-4 vaccine only had 66.7%. Our results suggested that the D7 vaccine could prevent and control H5N1 virus outbreaks more effectively in Guangdong. From the above, it was necessary to conduct continuously epidemiological survey and study the pathogenicity and antigenic variation of avian influenza in Southern China. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 20% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,480,713
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#8,199
of 24,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,125
of 298,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#244
of 582 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,883 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 65% 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 298,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 582 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.