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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Modulation of La Crosse Virus Infection in Aedes albopictus Mosquitoes Following Larval Exposure to Coffee Extracts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2012.00066 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicole E. Eastep, Rachel E. Albert, Justin R. Anderson |
| Abstract |
The mosquito-borne La Crosse virus (LACV; Family Bunyaviridae) may cause encephalitis, primarily in children, and is distributed throughout much of the eastern United States. No antivirals or vaccines are available for LACV, or most other mosquito-borne viruses, and prevention generally relies on mosquito control. We sought to determine whether coffee extracts could interfere with LACV replication and vector mosquito development. Both regular and decaffeinated coffee demonstrated significant reductions in LACV replication in direct antiviral assays. This activity was not due to the presence of caffeine, which did not inhibit the virus life cycle. Aedes albopictus (Skuse; Diptera: Culicidae) mosquito larvae suffered near total mortality when reared in high concentrations of regular and decaffeinated coffee and in caffeine. Following larval exposure to sublethal coffee concentrations, adult A. albopictus mosquitoes had significantly reduced whole-body LACV titers 5 days post-infection, compared to larvae reared in distilled water. These results suggest that it may be possible to both control mosquito populations and alter the vector competence of mosquitoes for arthropod-borne viruses by introducing antiviral compounds into the larval habitat. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 41% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
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 29 March 2012.
All research outputs
#20,165,369
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,270
of 13,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,176
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#208
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.