↓ Skip to main content

Plasmodium falciparum HRP2 ELISA for analysis of dried blood spot samples in rural Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Plasmodium falciparum HRP2 ELISA for analysis of dried blood spot samples in rural Zambia
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1996-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren E. Gibson, Christine F. Markwalter, Danielle W. Kimmel, Lwiindi Mudenda, Saidon Mbambara, Philip E. Thuma, David W. Wright

Abstract

Dried blood spots are commonly used for sample collection in clinical and non-clinical settings. This method is simple, and biomolecules in the samples remain stable for months at room temperature. In the field, blood samples for the study and diagnosis of malaria are often collected on dried blood spot cards, so development of a biomarker extraction and analysis method is needed. A simple extraction procedure for the malarial biomarker Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) from dried blood spots was optimized to achieve maximum extraction efficiency. This method was used to assess the stability of HRP2 in dried blood spots. Furthermore, 328 patient samples made available from rural Zambia were analysed for HRP2 using the developed method. These samples were collected at the initial administration of artemisinin-based combination therapy and at several points following treatment. An average extraction efficiency of 70% HRP2 with a low picomolar detection limit was achieved. In specific storage conditions HRP2 was found to be stable in dried blood spots for at least 6 months. Analysis of patient samples showed the method to have a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 89% when compared with microscopy, and trends in HRP2 clearance after treatment were observed. The dried blood spot ELISA for HRP2 was found to be sensitive, specific and accurate. The method was effectively used to assess biomarker clearance characteristics in patient samples, which prove it to be ideal for gaining further insight into the disease and epidemiological applications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,027,172
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,154
of 5,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,486
of 317,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#69
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 317,355 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.