↓ Skip to main content

Towards Identifying Protective B-Cell Epitopes: The PspA Story

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Towards Identifying Protective B-Cell Epitopes: The PspA Story
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00742
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naeem Khan, Arif T. Jan

Abstract

Pneumococcal surface protein A (PspA) is one of the most abundant cell surface protein of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae). PspA variants are structurally and serologically diverse and help evade complement-mediated phagocytosis of S. pneumoniae, which is essential for its survival in the host. PspA is currently been screened for employment in the generation of more effective (serotype independent) vaccine to overcome the limitations of polysaccharide based vaccines, providing serotype specific immune responses. The cross-protection eliciting regions of PspA localize to the α-helical and proline rich regions. Recent data indicate significant variation in the ability of antibodies induced against the recombinant PspA variants to recognize distinct S. pneumoniae strains. Hence, screening for the identification of the topographical repertoire of B-cell epitopes that elicit cross-protective immune response seems essential in the engineering of a superior PspA-based vaccine. Herein, we revisit epitope identification in PspA and the utility of hybridoma technology in directing the identification of protective epitope regions of PspA that can be used in vaccine research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 28%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 9 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 28%
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 2017.
All research outputs
#18,548,834
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#19,470
of 25,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,558
of 310,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#415
of 527 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 310,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 527 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.