↓ Skip to main content

Oral Vaccination with Heat-Inactivated Mycobacterium bovis Does Not Interfere with the Antemortem Diagnostic Techniques for Tuberculosis in Goats

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Oral Vaccination with Heat-Inactivated Mycobacterium bovis Does Not Interfere with the Antemortem Diagnostic Techniques for Tuberculosis in Goats
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00124
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alvaro Roy, María A. Risalde, Carmen Casal, Beatriz Romero, Lucía de Juan, Ahmed M. Menshawy, Alberto Díez-Guerrier, Ramon A. Juste, Joseba M. Garrido, Iker A. Sevilla, Christian Gortázar, Lucas Domínguez, Javier Bezos

Abstract

Vaccination against tuberculosis (TB) is prohibited in cattle or other species subjected to specific TB eradication campaigns, due to the interference that it may cause with the official diagnostic tests. However, immunization with a heat-inactivated (HI) Mycobacterium bovis vaccine via the oral route has been suggested to overcome this issue. In this study, the main goal was to assess the interference of the HI vaccine by different routes of administration using a previous vaccination and re-vaccination (boosting) protocol. TB-free kid goats were divided into three groups: oral (n = 16), intramuscular (IM; n = 16), and control (n = 16). Results showed that there was a significant difference in the percentage of animals positive to the single intradermal test (SIT) and blood based interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) caused by vaccination when performed in the IM group compared to the oral group (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, no positivity to the SIT or IGRA test was observed in orally vaccinated goats regardless of the different interpretation criteria applied. None of the groups presented positive antibody titers using an in-house ELISA and samples collected 2 months after the boost. These results suggest the potential usefulness of the HI vaccine by the oral route in goats to minimize the interference on diagnostic tests (skin and IGRA tests) and reducing the necessity of defined antigens to replace the traditional purified protein derivatives for diagnosis. Finally, the results pave the way to future efficacy studies in goats using different routes of HI vaccination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 23%
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 22 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,950,579
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#2,700
of 6,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,206
of 317,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#35
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 317,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.