↓ Skip to main content

High prevalence of zoonotic trematodes in roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the Gulf of Finland

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
High prevalence of zoonotic trematodes in roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the Gulf of Finland
Published in
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13028-017-0343-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anu Näreaho, Anna Maria Eriksson-Kallio, Petra Heikkinen, Anna Snellman, Antti Sukura, Perttu Koski

Abstract

The intention to increase roach (Rutilus rutilus) consumption is in focus for ecological and economic reasons in Finland. However, its safety as food has not been considered comprehensively. We collected and artificially digested 85 roach halves originating from the south-eastern coast of Finland, and found trematode metacercariae in 98.8% of the samples. Based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing of amplicons generated from the ITS2 gene region, zoonotic parasites of the family Opistorchiidae were identified as Pseudamphistomum truncatum and Metorchis bilis, and also non-zoonotic Holostephanus dubinini (family Cyathocotylidae) and Posthodiplostomum spp. (family Diplostomidae) were identified. The species identity of other trematodes found is currently being investigated. Mixed infections of several trematode species were common. The prevalence of morphologically identified zoonotic P. truncatum was 46%, and zoonotic M. bilis was found in one sequence sample. The high prevalence of zoonotic trematode metacercariae in roach from the Gulf of Finland is alarming. Only thoroughly cooked roach products can be recommended for human or animal consumption from the area.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Lecturer 1 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 13%
Social Sciences 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%

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 04 February 2018.
All research outputs
#11,592,711
of 13,047,215 outputs
Outputs from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#399
of 492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,312
of 345,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,047,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 492 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 345,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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