↓ Skip to main content

Characterization and specificity of the linear epitope of the enterovirus 71 VP2 protein

Overview of attention for article published in Virology Journal, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Characterization and specificity of the linear epitope of the enterovirus 71 VP2 protein
Published in
Virology Journal, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1743-422x-9-55
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja K Kiener, Qiang Jia, Xiao Fang Lim, Fang He, Tao Meng, Vincent Tak Kwong Chow, Jimmy Kwang

Abstract

Enterovirus 71 (EV71) has emerged as a major causative agent of hand, foot and mouth disease in the Asia-Pacific region over the last decade. Hand, foot and mouth disease can be caused by different etiological agents from the enterovirus family, mainly EV71 and coxsackieviruses, which are genetically closely related. Nevertheless, infection with EV71 may occasionally lead to high fever, neurologic complications and the emergence of a rapidly fatal syndrome of pulmonary edema associated with brainstem encephalitis. The rapid progression and high mortality of severe EV71 infection has highlighted the need for EV71-specific diagnostic and therapeutic tools. Monoclonal antibodies are urgently needed to specifically detect EV71 antigens from patient specimens early in the infection process. Furthermore, the elucidation of viral epitopes will contribute to the development of targeted therapeutics and vaccines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,911,493
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#775
of 3,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,156
of 155,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#9
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 155,587 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.