↓ Skip to main content

Foamy virus zoonotic infections

Overview of attention for article published in Retrovirology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Foamy virus zoonotic infections
Published in
Retrovirology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12977-017-0379-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Delia M. Pinto-Santini, Carolyn R. Stenbak, Maxine L. Linial

Abstract

Foamy viruses (FV) are ancient complex retroviruses that differ from orthoretroviruses such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and murine leukemia virus (MLV) and comprise a distinct subfamily of retroviruses, the Spumaretrovirinae. FV are ubiquitous in their natural hosts, which include cows, cats, and nonhuman primates (NHP). FV are transmitted mainly through saliva and appear nonpathogenic by themselves, but they may increase morbidity of other pathogens in coinfections. This review summarizes and discusses what is known about FV infection of natural hosts. It also emphasizes what is known about FV zoonotic infections A large number of studies have revealed that the FV of NHP, simian foamy viruses (SFV), are transmitted to humans who interact with infected NHP. SFV from a variety of NHP establish persistent infection in humans, while bovine foamy virus and feline foamy virus rarely or never do. The possibility of FV recombination and mutation leading to pathogenesis is considered. Since humans can be infected by SFV, a seemingly nonpathogenic virus, there is interest in using SFV vectors for human gene therapy. In this regard, detailed understanding of zoonotic SFV infection is highly relevant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 23 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 14 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 July 2020.
All research outputs
#11,858,220
of 18,197,021 outputs
Outputs from Retrovirology
#667
of 953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,706
of 422,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Retrovirology
#40
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,197,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 422,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.