↓ Skip to main content

Consideration of methods for identifying mite allergens

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Consideration of methods for identifying mite allergens
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13601-018-0200-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yubao Cui, Qiong Wang, Haoyuan Jia

Abstract

House dust mites are small arthropods that produce proteins-found in their feces, body parts, and eggs-that are major triggers of human allergies worldwide. The goal of this review is to describe the current methods used to identify these allergens. A literature search for allergen identification methods employed between 1995 and 2016 revealed multiple techniques that can be broadly grouped into discovery and confirmation phases. The discovery phase employs screening for mite proteins that can bind IgEs in sera from animals or patients allergic to dust mites. The confirmation phase employs biochemical methods to isolate either native or recombinant mite proteins, confirms the IgE binding of the purified allergens, and uses either in vitro or in vivo assays to demonstrate that the purified antigen can stimulate an immune response. The methods used in the two phases are defined and their strengths and weaknesses are discussed. The majority of HDM-allergic patients may respond to just a small subset of proteins, but new protein discovery methods are still warranted in order to develop a complete panel of HDM allergens for component resolved diagnosis and patient-tailored therapies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,188,883
of 15,917,403 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#51
of 480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,337
of 279,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,917,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 279,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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