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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Further evaluation of the NWF filter for the purification of Plasmodium vivax-infected erythrocytes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12936-017-1855-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jiangyan Li, Zhiyong Tao, Qian Li, Awtum Brashear, Ying Wang, Hui Xia, Qiang Fang, Liwang Cui |
| Abstract |
Isolation of Plasmodium-infected red blood cells (iRBCs) from clinical blood samples is often required for experiments, such as ex vivo drug assays, in vitro invasion assays and genome sequencing. Current methods for removing white blood cells (WBCs) from malaria-infected blood are time-consuming or costly. A prototype non-woven fabric (NWF) filter was developed for the purification of iRBCs, which showed great efficiency for removing WBCs in a pilot study. Previous work was performed with prototype filters optimized for processing 5-10 mL of blood. With the commercialization of the filters, this study aims to evaluate the efficiency and suitability of the commercial NWF filter for the purification of Plasmodium vivax-infected RBCs in smaller volumes of blood and to compare its performance with that of Plasmodipur(®) filters. Forty-three clinical P. vivax blood samples taken from symptomatic patients attending malaria clinics at the China-Myanmar border were processed using the NWF filters in a nearby field laboratory. The numbers of WBCs and iRBCs and morphology of P. vivax parasites in the blood samples before and after NWF filtration were compared. The viability of P. vivax parasites after filtration from 27 blood samples was examined by in vitro short-term culture. In addition, the effectiveness of the NWF filter for removing WBCs was compared with that of the Plasmodipur(®) filter in six P. vivax blood samples. Filtration of 1-2 mL of P. vivax-infected blood with the NWF filter removed 99.68% WBCs. The densities of total iRBCs, ring and trophozoite stages before and after filtration were not significantly different (P > 0.05). However, the recovery rates of schizont- and gametocyte-infected RBCs, which were minor parasite stages in the clinical samples, were relatively low. After filtration, the P. vivax parasites did not show apparent morphological changes. Culture of 27 P. vivax-infected blood samples after filtration showed that parasites successfully matured into the schizont stage. The WBC removal rates and iRBC recovery rates were not significantly different between the NWF and Plasmodipur(®) filters (P > 0.05). When tested with 1-2 mL of P. vivax-infected blood, the NWF filter could effectively remove WBCs and the recovery rates for ring- and trophozoite-iRBCs were high. P. vivax parasites after filtration could be successfully cultured in vitro to reach maturity. The performance of the NWF and Plasmodipur(®) filters for removing WBCs and recovering iRBCs was comparable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
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 20 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,063,221
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,772
of 5,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,894
of 313,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#102
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,587 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 313,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.