↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 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
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2003
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-2-35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victoria Carter, Hazel C Cable, B Ann Underhill, Jackie Williams, Hilary Hurd

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Large scale in vitro production of the mosquito stages of malaria parasites remains elusive, with only limited success for complete sporogonic development and only one report of development through to infective sporozoites. The initial step in this process is the production, in vitro, of ookinetes from gametocytaemic blood. Methods for isolation of these ookinetes from blood cells have been described; however, in addition to yield often being low, processing time and potential for contamination by erythrocytes remain high. METHODS: This study compares two procedures for retaining mature ookinetes from blood stage cultures, whilst removing red blood cells and other contaminants prior to further culture of the parasite. The well established method of isolation on Nycodenz cushions is compared with a novel method utilizing the innate magnetic properties of the haem pigment crystals found in the cytoplasm of ookinetes. RESULTS: Yield and viability of ookinetes were similar with both isolation methods. However, in our hands magnetic isolation produced a cleaner ookinete preparation much more quickly. Moreover, decreasing the flow rate through the magnetic column could further enhance the yield. CONCLUSION: We recommend the enrichment of an ookinete preparation prior to further culture being performed using the magnetic properties of Plasmodium berghei ookinetes as an alternative to their density. The former technique is faster, removes more erythrocytes, but day-to-day costs are greater.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Portugal 1 3%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 3%
Lithuania 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 31 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 41%
Student > Master 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Lecturer 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 May 2012.
All research outputs
#7,858,238
of 12,524,399 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,737
of 3,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,656
of 118,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,524,399 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 118,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.