↓ Skip to main content

Immunosuppression abrogates resistance of young rabbits to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD)

Overview of attention for article published in Veterinary Research, February 2014
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
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Immunosuppression abrogates resistance of young rabbits to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD)
Published in
Veterinary Research, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1297-9716-45-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel M Marques, Luzia Teixeira, Artur P Águas, Joana C Ribeiro, António Costa-e-Silva, Paula G Ferreira

Abstract

Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) is caused by a calicivirus (RHDV) that kills 90% of infected adult European rabbits within 3 days. Remarkably, young rabbits are resistant to RHD. We induced immunosuppression in young rabbits by treatment with methylprednisolone acetate (MPA) and challenged the animals with RHDV by intramuscular injection. All of these young rabbits died within 3 days of infection due to fulminant hepatitis, presenting a large number of RHDV-positive dead or apoptotic hepatocytes, and a significant seric increase in cytokines, features that are similar to those of naïve adult rabbits infected by RHDV. We conclude that MPA-induced immunosuppression abrogates the resistance of young rabbits to RHD, indicating that there are differences in the innate immune system between young and adult rabbits that contribute to their distinct resistance/susceptibility to RHDV infection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 31%
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 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,982,793
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Research
#716
of 1,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,825
of 322,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Research
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,337 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 322,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.