↓ Skip to main content

Virus-like particles vaccine containing Clonorchis sinensis tegumental protein induces partial protection against Clonorchis sinensis infection

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Virus-like particles vaccine containing Clonorchis sinensis tegumental protein induces partial protection against Clonorchis sinensis infection
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2526-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dong-Hun Lee, Ah-Ra Kim, Su-Hwa Lee, Fu-Shi Quan

Abstract

Human clonorchiasis, caused by the infection of Clonorchis sinensis, is one of the major health problems in Southeast Asia. However, vaccine efficacy against C. sinensis infection remains largely unknown. In this study, for the first time, we generated virus-like particles (VLPs) vaccine containing the C. sinensis tegumental protein 22.3 kDa (CsTP 22.3) and the influenza matrix protein (M1) as a core protein, and investigated the vaccine efficacy in Sprague-Dawley rats. Intranasal immunization of VLPs vaccine induced C. sinensis-specific IgG, IgG2a and IgG2c in the sera and IgA responses in the feces and intestines. Notably, upon challenge infection with C. sinensis metacercariae, significantly lower adult worm loads (70.2%) were measured in the liver of rats immunized with VLPs, compared to those of naïve rats. Furthermore, VLPs immunization induced antibody secreting cells (ASC) responses and CD4+/CD8+ T cell responses in the spleen. Our results indicated that VLPs vaccine containing C. sinensis CsTP 22.3 kDa provided partial protection against C. sisnensis infection. Thus, VLPs could be a potential vaccine candidate against C. sinensis.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 35%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 24%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%

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 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#10,564,615
of 13,266,991 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,559
of 3,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,503
of 384,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#446
of 554 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,266,991 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,516 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 384,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 554 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.