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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Replication of porcine circoviruses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virology Journal, May 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-422x-6-60 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florence Faurez, Daniel Dory, Béatrice Grasland, André Jestin |
| Abstract |
Porcine circoviruses are circular single-stranded DNA viruses that infect swine and wild boars. Two species of porcine circoviruses exist. Porcine circovirus type 1 is non pathogenic contrary to porcine circovirus type 2 which is associated with the disease known as Post-weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome. Porcine circovirus DNA has been shown to replicate by a rolling circle mechanism. Other studies have revealed similar mechanisms of rolling-circle replication in plasmids and single-stranded viruses such as Geminivirus. Three elements are important in rolling-circle replication: i) a gene encoding initiator protein, ii) a double strand origin, and iii) a single strand origin. However, differences exist between viruses and plasmids and between viruses. Porcine circovirus replication probably involves a "melting pot" rather than "cruciform" rolling-circle mechanism.This review provides a summary of current knowledge of replication in porcine circoviruses as models of the Circovirus genus. Based on various studies, the factors affecting replication are defined and the mechanisms involved in the different phases of replication are described or proposed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 47 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 10% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 11 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,453,479
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#898
of 3,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,149
of 94,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 94,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.