↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Secretory Autophagy in Zika Virus Transfer through the Placental Barrier

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
The Role of Secretory Autophagy in Zika Virus Transfer through the Placental Barrier
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2016.00206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhong-Wei Zhang, Zi-Lin Li, Shu Yuan

Abstract

Recent studies indicated that the Zika virus genome could be detected in the amniotic fluid and the fetal brain, which confirms that the virus can cross the placental barrier. Secretory autophagy or exosome pathways may participate in this virus transfer. Autophagy modulators regulate autophagosome formation or membrane fusion with lysosomal vesicles and therefore inhibit viral nucleocapsid releasing or virus transfer to the fetus hypothetically. However, some autophagy modulators may enhance virus replication. Autophagy inhibitors may arrest placental development; while exaggeration of autophagy in human placenta may be associated with the fetal growth restriction. Therefore, autophagy modulators should be used carefully due to their complex clinical effects. Alternatively, exosome-specific inhibitors might be also considered, although their safety of both maternal and fetal conditions must be carefully assessed before any advancement to human clinical trials.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 115 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 27 23%
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 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,254,867
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#1,527
of 6,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,495
of 421,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#18
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 421,158 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.