↓ Skip to main content

Macaque models of enhanced susceptibility to HIV

Overview of attention for article published in Virology Journal, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Macaque models of enhanced susceptibility to HIV
Published in
Virology Journal, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12985-015-0320-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tara R. Henning, Janet M. McNicholl, Sundaram A. Vishwanathan, Ellen N. Kersh

Abstract

There are few nonhuman primate models of enhanced HIV susceptibility. Such models can improve comprehension of HIV acquisition risk factors and provide rigorous testing platforms for preclinical prevention strategies. This paper reviews past, current, and proposed research on macaque HIV acquisition risk models and identifies areas where modeling is significantly lacking. We compare different experimental approaches and provide practical considerations for designing macaque susceptibility studies. Modifiable (mucosal and systemic coinfections, hormonal contraception, and rectal lubricants) and non-modifiable (hormonal fluctuations) risk factors are highlighted. Risk acquisition models via vaginal, rectal, and penile challenge routes are discussed. There is no consensus on the best statistical model for evaluating increased susceptibility, and additional research is required. The use of enhanced susceptibility macaque models would benefit multiple facets of the HIV research field, including basic acquisition and pathogenesis studies as well as the vaccine and other biomedical preventions pipeline.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Other 2 6%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,687,958
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#1,780
of 3,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,630
of 264,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#30
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 264,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.