↓ Skip to main content

Alphacoronavirus in urban Molossidae and Phyllostomidae bats, Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Virology Journal, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Alphacoronavirus in urban Molossidae and Phyllostomidae bats, Brazil
Published in
Virology Journal, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12985-016-0569-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Miyuki Asano, Aline Santana Hora, Karin Côrrea Scheffer, Willian Oliveira Fahl, Keila Iamamoto, Enio Mori, Paulo Eduardo Brandão

Abstract

Bats have been implicated as the main reservoir of coronavirus (CoV). Thus the role of these hosts on the evolution and spread of CoVs currently deserve the attention of emerging diseases surveillance programs. On the view of the interest on and importance of CoVs in bats the occurrence and molecular characterization of CoV were conducted in bats from Brazil. Three hundred five enteric contents of 29 bat species were tested using a panCoV nested RT-PCR. Nine specimens were positive and eight was suitable for RdRp gene sequencing. RdRp gene phylogeny showed that all CoVs strains from this study cluster in Alphacoronavirus genus, with one Molossidae and one Phlyllostomidae-CoV specific groups. Phylogenetic analyses of two S gene sequences showed a large diversity within the Alphacoronavirus genus. This study indicated a CoV-to-host specificity and draws attention for CoV detection in Cynomops sp, a potential new reservoir. The phylogenetic analyses indicate that diversity of CoV in bats is higher than previously known.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Professor 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 16%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 9%
Unspecified 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 28 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 09 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,694,998
of 23,956,119 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#122
of 3,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,944
of 357,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#2
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,956,119 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 357,497 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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.