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 |
Galleria mellonella (greater wax moth) larvae as a model for antibiotic susceptibility testing and acute toxicity trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-017-2757-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katarzyna Ignasiak, Anthony Maxwell |
| Abstract |
Infectivity trials and toxicity testing in rodents are important prerequisites to the use of compounds in man. However, trials in rats and mice are expensive and there are ethical considerations. Galleria mellonella (greater wax moth) larvae are a potential alternative. We have assessed the use of these insects in infectivity trials and toxicity testing. Using four bacterial species (two Gram-negative and two Gram-positive) we have assessed the efficacy of four antibiotics against infections in Galleria and compared the antibiotic susceptibility with that in humans. In general, we find a good correlation. Similarly, we have assessed 11 compounds (initially tested blind) for their toxicity in Galleria and compared this with toxicity trials in mice and rats. Again we found a good correlation between toxicity in Galleria and that in rodents. We have found, in our hands, that G. mellonella larvae can be used in infectivity trials and toxicity testing, and that these assays represent an inexpensive and readily executable alternative to testing in rodents. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 219 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 19% |
| Unknown | 49 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 38 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 16% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 25 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 32 | 15% |
| Unknown | 60 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 21 September 2023.
All research outputs
#837,824
of 24,482,039 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#71
of 4,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,713
of 320,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#3
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,482,039 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 320,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.