↓ Skip to main content

Pathogenesis of and strategies for preventing Edwardsiella tarda infection in fish

Overview of attention for article published in Veterinary Research, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
222 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 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
Pathogenesis of and strategies for preventing Edwardsiella tarda infection in fish
Published in
Veterinary Research, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1297-9716-43-67
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seong Bin Park, Takashi Aoki, Tae Sung Jung

Abstract

Edwardsiella tarda is one of the serious fish pathogens, infecting both cultured and wild fish species. Research on edwardsiellosis has revealed that E. tarda has a broad host range and geographic distribution, and contains important virulence factors that enhance bacterial survival and pathogenesis in hosts. Although recent progress in edwardsiellosis research has enabled the development of numerous, highly effective vaccine candidates, these efforts have not been translated into a commercialized vaccine. The present review aims to provide an overview of the identification, pathology, diagnosis and virulence factors of E. tarda in fish, and describe recent strategies for developing vaccines against edwardsiellosis. The hope is that this presentation will be useful not only from the standpoint of understanding the pathogenesis of E. tarda, but also from the perspective of facilitating the development of effective vaccines.

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 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 239 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 16%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Student > Postgraduate 15 6%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 66 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 74 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 21 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 5%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 75 30%

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 14 November 2013.
All research outputs
#924,387
of 4,507,072 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Research
#67
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,676
of 79,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Research
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 79,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.