↓ Skip to main content

Immunogenicity and protective potential of a Plasmodium spp. enolase peptide displayed on archaeal gas vesicle nanoparticles

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 5,676)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Immunogenicity and protective potential of a Plasmodium spp. enolase peptide displayed on archaeal gas vesicle nanoparticles
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0914-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sneha Dutta, Priya DasSarma, Shiladitya DasSarma, Gotam K. Jarori

Abstract

Plasmodium falciparum enolase has been shown to localize on the surface of merozoites and ookinetes. Immunization of mice with recombinant Plasmodium enolase (rPfeno) showed partial protection against malaria. Anti-rPfeno antibodies inhibited growth of the parasite in in vitro cultures and blocked ookinete invasion of mosquito midgut epithelium. It is hypothesized that parasite specific moonlighting functions (e.g. host cell invasion) may map on to unique structural elements of Pfeno. Since enolases are highly conserved between the host and the parasite, a parasite-specific epitope of enolase was displayed on novel protein nanoparticles produced by a halophilic Archaeon Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 and tested their ability to protect mice against live challenge. By genetic engineering, a Plasmodium-enolase specific peptide sequence (104)EWGWS(108) with protective antigenic potential was inserted into the Halobacterium gas vesicle protein GvpC, a protein localized on the surface of immunogenic gas vesicle nanoparticles (GVNPs). Two groups of mice were immunized with the wild type (WT) and the insert containing recombinant (Rec) GVNPs respectively. A third group of mice was kept as un-immunized control. Antibody titres were measured against three antigens (i.e. WT-GVNPs, Rec-GVNPs and rPfeno) using ELISA. The protective potential was determined by measuring percentage parasitaemia and survival after challenge with the lethal strain Plasmodium yoelii 17XL. Rec-GVNP-immunized mice showed higher antibody titres against rPfeno and Rec-GVNPs, indicating that the immunized mice had produced antibodies against the parasite enolase-specific insert sequence. Challenging the un-immunized, WT-GVNP and Rec-GVNP-immunized mice with a lethal strain of mice malarial parasite showed significantly lower parasitaemia and longer survival in the Rec-GVNP-immunized group as compared to control groups. The extent of survival advantage in the Rec-GVNP-group showed positive correlation with anti-rPfeno antibody titres while the parasitaemia showed a negative correlation. These results indicate that the parasite enolase peptide insert displayed on Halobacterium GVNPs is a good candidate as a protective antigenic epitope. The work reported here showed that the parasite-specific peptide sequence is a protective antigenic epitope. Although antibody response of B-cells to the guest sequence in Rec-GVNPs was mild, significant advantage in the control of parasitaemia and survival was observed. Future efforts are needed to display multiple antigens with protective properties to improve the performance of the GVNP-based approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 28%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 5 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 24 June 2016.
All research outputs
#356,352
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#35
of 5,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,387
of 280,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#3
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 280,845 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 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.