↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic antigens for visceral leishmaniasis: clarification of nomenclatures

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, April 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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 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
Diagnostic antigens for visceral leishmaniasis: clarification of nomenclatures
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2120-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tapan Bhattacharyya, Tegwen Marlais, Michael A. Miles

Abstract

Stimulated by the increasing recent use of 'K' or 'rK' nomenclature for antigens reported for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) diagnostic serology, we wished to give a chronological synopsis of their reporting and the potentially confusing terminology. The literature was examined for 'K' or 'rK' terminology for VL diagnostic antigens, with emphasis on the original publications in which terms were first used. A chronological account of the first use of these 'K' and 'rK' nomenclatures was compiled. Since the original use of this terminology in 1993 in the name rK39 for a Leishmania antigen fragment, we found nine subsequent instances where 'K' or 'rK' have been used to maintain consistency with this nomenclature. We also found instances where there were ambiguities regarding reported strain name, origin and GenBank accession numbers. We have documented here the uses in the literature of the 'K' or 'rK' prefix for VL diagnostic antigen nomenclature. We suggest that, to avoid confusion, the use of such nomenclature for future antigens should either provide the logical derivation of the term or indicate that the designation is entirely empirical.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Lecturer 1 3%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 6 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 41%
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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,547,128
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,473
of 5,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,170
of 310,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#75
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 310,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.