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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Down selecting adjuvanted vaccine formulations: a comparative method for harmonized evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Immunology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12865-018-0245-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sumera Y. Younis, Christophe Barnier-Quer, Simon Heuking, Vinod Sommandas, Livia Brunner, Nicole vd.Werff, Patrice Dubois, Martin Friede, Clemens Kocken, Nicolas Collin, Ed Remarque |
| Abstract |
The need for rapid and accurate comparison of panels of adjuvanted vaccine formulations and subsequent rational down selection, presents several challenges for modern vaccine development. Here we describe a method which may enable vaccine and adjuvant developers to compare antigen/adjuvant combinations in a harmonized fashion. Three reference antigens: Plasmodium falciparum apical membrane antigen 1 (AMA1), hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg), and Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen 85A (Ag85A), were selected as model antigens and were each formulated with three adjuvants: aluminium oxyhydroxide, squalene-in-water emulsion, and a liposome formulation mixed with the purified saponin fraction QS21. The nine antigen/adjuvant formulations were assessed for stability and immunogenicity in mice in order to provide benchmarks against which other formulations could be compared, in order to assist subsequent down selection of adjuvanted vaccines. Furthermore, mouse cellular immune responses were analyzed by measuring IFN-γ and IL-5 production in splenocytes by ELISPOT, and humoral responses were determined by antigen-specific ELISA, where levels of total IgG, IgG1, IgG2b and IgG2c in serum samples were determined. The reference antigens and adjuvants described in this study, which span a spectrum of immune responses, are of potential use as tools to act as points of reference in vaccine development studies. The harmonized methodology described herein may be used as a tool for adjuvant/antigen comparison studies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 43% |
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 27 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,869,176
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Immunology
#114
of 589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,953
of 440,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Immunology
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 589 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 440,194 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.