↓ Skip to main content

An inter-laboratory comparison of standard membrane-feeding assays for evaluation of malaria transmission-blocking vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
An inter-laboratory comparison of standard membrane-feeding assays for evaluation of malaria transmission-blocking vaccines
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1515-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazutoyo Miura, Will J. R. Stone, Karin M. Koolen, Bingbing Deng, Luwen Zhou, Geert-Jan van Gemert, Emily Locke, Merribeth Morin, Teun Bousema, Robert W. Sauerwein, Carole A. Long, Koen J. Dechering

Abstract

An effective malaria transmission-blocking vaccine may play an important role in malaria elimination efforts, and a robust biological assay is essential for its development. The standard membrane-feeding assay (SMFA) for Plasmodium falciparum infection of mosquitoes is considered a "gold standard" assay to measure transmission-blocking activity of test antibodies, and has been utilized widely in both non-clinical and clinical studies. While several studies have discussed the inherent variability of SMFA within a study group, there has been no assessment of inter-laboratory variation. Therefore, there is currently no assurance that SMFA results are comparable between different studies. Mouse anti-Pfs25 monoclonal antibody (mAb, 4B7 mAb), rat anti-Pfs48/45 mAb (85RF45.1 mAb) and a human polyclonal antibody (pAb) collected from a malaria-exposed adult were tested at the same concentrations (6-94 μg/mL for 4B7, 1.2-31.3 μg/mL for 85RF45.1 and 23-630 μg/mL for human pAb) in two laboratories following their own standardized SMFA protocols. The mAbs and pAb, previously shown to have strong inhibition activities in the SMFA, were tested at three or four concentrations in two or three independent assays in each laboratory, and percent inhibition in mean oocyst intensity relative to a control in the same feed was determined in each feeding experiment. Both monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies dose-dependently reduced oocyst intensity in all experiments performed at the two test sites. In both laboratories, the inter-assay variability in percent inhibition in oocyst intensity decreased at higher levels of inhibition, regardless of which antibody was tested. At antibody concentrations that led to a >80 % reduction in oocyst numbers, the inter-laboratory variations were in the same range compared with the inter-assay variation observed within a single laboratory, and the differences in best estimates from multiple feeds between the two laboratories were <5 percentage points. This study confirms previous reports that the precision of the SMFA increases with increasing percent inhibition. Moreover, the variation between the two laboratories is not greater than the variation observed within a laboratory. The findings of this study provide guidance for comparison of SMFA data from different laboratories.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 21 34%
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 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
#12,670,959
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,966
of 5,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,617
of 330,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#50
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 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 5,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 330,061 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 121 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.