↓ Skip to main content

Limitations of using feline coronavirus spike protein gene mutations to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis

Overview of attention for article published in Veterinary Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Limitations of using feline coronavirus spike protein gene mutations to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis
Published in
Veterinary Research, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13567-017-0467-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily N. Barker, Angelica Stranieri, Chris R. Helps, Emily L. Porter, Andrew D. Davidson, Michael J. Day, Toby Knowles, Anja Kipar, Séverine Tasker

Abstract

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is a fatal disease of cats, and a sequela of systemic feline coronavirus (FCoV) infection. Mutations in the viral spike (S) gene have been associated with FCoVs found in tissues from cats with FIP, but not FCoVs found in faeces from healthy cats, and are implicated in monocyte/macrophage tropism and systemic spread. This study was designed to determine whether S gene mutation analysis can reliably diagnose FIP. Cats were categorised as with FIP (n = 57) or without FIP (n = 45) based on gross post-mortem and histopathological examination including immunohistochemistry for FCoV antigen. RNA was purified from available tissue, fluid and faeces. Reverse-transcriptase quantitative-PCR (RT-qPCR) was performed on all samples using FCoV-specific primers, followed by sequencing of a section of the S gene on RT-qPCR positive samples. Samples were available from a total of 102 cats. Tissue, fluid, and faecal samples from cats with FIP were more likely to be FCoV RT-qPCR-positive (90.4, 78.4 and 64.6% respectively) than those from cats without FIP (7.8, 2.1 and 20% respectively). Identification of S gene mutated FCoVs as an additional step to the detection of FCoV alone, only moderately increased specificity for tissue samples (from 92.6 to 94.6%) but specificity was unchanged for fluid samples (97.9%) for FIP diagnosis; however, sensitivity was markedly decreased for tissue (from 89.8 to 80.9%) and fluid samples (from 78.4 to 60%) for FIP diagnosis. These findings demonstrate that S gene mutation analysis in FCoVs does not substantially improve the ability to diagnose FIP as compared to detection of FCoV alone.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Other 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 39 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 32 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,777,259
of 19,288,211 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Research
#165
of 1,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,191
of 292,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Research
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,288,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,082 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 292,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them