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 |
Viral dominance of reassortants between canine influenza H3N2 and pandemic (2009) H1N1 viruses from a naturally co-infected dog
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virology Journal, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12985-015-0343-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Woonsung Na, Kwang-Soo Lyoo, Eun-jung Song, Minki Hong, Minjoo Yeom, Hyoungjoon Moon, Bo-Kyu Kang, Doo-Jin Kim, Jeong-Ki Kim, Daesub Song |
| Abstract |
Since avian-origin H3N2 canine influenza virus (CIV) was first identified in South Korea in 2008, the novel influenza virus has been reported in several countries in Asia. Reverse zoonotic transmission of pandemic H1N1 (2009) influenza virus (pH1N1) has been observed in a broad range of animal species. Viral dominance and characterization of the reassortants of both viruses was undertaken in the present study. Here we describe the viral dominance of 23 CIV reassortants between pH1N1 and canine H3N2 influenza viruses from a naturally co-infected dog. These results indicate that the M gene of pandemic H1N1 and the HA gene of canine H3N2 are predominant in the reassortants. Furthermore, unlike the original canine H3N2 virus, some reassortants showed high pathogenicity in mice. This study suggests that continuous monitoring of influenza infection in companion animals may be necessary to investigate the potential of the emergence of novel influenza viruses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
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 19 September 2015.
All research outputs
#12,935,224
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#1,212
of 3,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,268
of 267,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#19
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 267,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.