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 |
The genetic diversity of Borrelia afzelii is not maintained by the diversity of the rodent hosts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Parasites & Vectors, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13071-018-3006-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia E. Coipan, Gilian L. A. van Duijvendijk, Tim R. Hofmeester, Katsuhisa Takumi, Hein Sprong |
| Abstract |
Small mammals are essential in the enzootic cycle of many tick-borne pathogens (TBP). To understand their contribution to the genetic diversity of Borrelia afzelii, the most prevalent TBP in questing Ixodes ricinus, we compared the genetic variants of B. afzelii at three distinct genetic loci. We chose two plasmid loci, dbpA and ospC, and a chromosomal one, IGS. While the larvae that fed on shrews (Sorex sp.) tested negative for B. afzelii, those fed on bank voles (Myodes glareolus) and wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) showed high infection prevalences of 0.13 and 0.27, respectively. Despite the high genetic diversity within B. afzelii, there was no difference between wood mice and bank voles in the number and types of B. afzelii haplotypes they transmit. The genetic diversity in B. afzelii cannot be explained by separate enzootic cycles in wood mice and bank voles. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Norway | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 22% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
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 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#14,006,290
of 24,758,493 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,267
of 5,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,389
of 335,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#57
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,758,493 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 335,825 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 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 62% of its contemporaries.