↓ Skip to main content

Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2017
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
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolai Siemens, Sonja Oehmcke-Hecht, Thomas C. Mettenleiter, Bernd Kreikemeyer, Peter Valentin-Weigand, Sven Hammerschmidt

Abstract

Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 21 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,340,661
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#9,960
of 25,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,371
of 440,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#276
of 515 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,119 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 58% 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 440,658 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 515 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.