↓ Skip to main content

Application of Nanotrap technology for high sensitivity measurement of urinary outer surface protein A carboxyl-terminus domain in early stage Lyme borreliosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
21 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Application of Nanotrap technology for high sensitivity measurement of urinary outer surface protein A carboxyl-terminus domain in early stage Lyme borreliosis
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12967-015-0701-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruben Magni, Benjamin H. Espina, Ketul Shah, Benjamin Lepene, Christine Mayuga, Temple A. Douglas, Virginia Espina, Sally Rucker, Ross Dunlap, Emanuel F. III Petricoin, Mary Frekko Kilavos, Donald M. Poretz, Gilbert R. Irwin, Samuel M. Shor, Lance A. Liotta, Alessandra Luchini

Abstract

Prompt antibiotic treatment of early stage Lyme borreliosis (LB) prevents progression to severe multisystem disease. There is a clinical need to improve the diagnostic specificity of early stage Lyme assays in the period prior to the mounting of a robust serology response. Using a novel analyte harvesting nanotechnology, Nanotrap particles, we evaluated urinary Borrelia Outer surface protein A (OspA) C-terminus peptide in early stage LB before and after treatment, and in patients suspected of late stage disseminated LB. We employed Nanotrap particles to concentrate urinary OspA and used a highly specific anti-OspA monoclonal antibody (mAb) as a detector of the C-terminus peptides. We mapped the mAb epitope to a narrow specific OspA C-terminal domain OspA236-239 conserved across infectious Borrelia species but with no homology to human proteins and no cross-reactivity with relevant viral and non-Borrelia bacterial proteins. 268 urine samples from patients being evaluated for all categories of LB were collected in a LB endemic area. The urinary OspA assay, blinded to outcome, utilized Nanotrap particle pre-processing, western blotting to evaluate the OspA molecular size, and OspA peptide competition for confirmation. OspA test characteristics: sensitivity 1.7 pg/mL (lowest limit of detection), % coefficient of variation (CV) = 8 %, dynamic range 1.7-30 pg/mL. Pre-treatment, 24/24 newly diagnosed patients with an erythema migrans (EM) rash were positive for urinary OspA while false positives for asymptomatic patients were 0/117 (Chi squared p < 10(-6)). For 10 patients who exhibited persistence of the EM rash during the course of antibiotic therapy, 10/10 were positive for urinary OspA. Urinary OspA of 8/8 patients switched from detectable to undetectable following symptom resolution post-treatment. Specificity of the urinary OspA test for the clinical symptoms was 40/40. Specificity of the urinary OspA antigen test for later serology outcome was 87.5 % (21 urinary OspA positive/24 serology positive, Chi squared p = 4.072e(-15)). 41 of 100 patients under surveillance for persistent LB in an endemic area were positive for urinary OspA protein. OspA urinary shedding was strongly linked to concurrent active symptoms (e.g. EM rash and arthritis), while resolution of these symptoms after therapy correlated with urinary conversion to OspA negative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Other 8 7%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Chemistry 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 22 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 182. 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 10 November 2020.
All research outputs
#205,546
of 24,317,326 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#59
of 4,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,839
of 290,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,317,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. 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 290,404 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 97% of its contemporaries.