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.
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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Microvesicles and intercellular communication in the context of parasitism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2013.00049 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natasha S. Barteneva, Natalia Maltsev, Ivan A. Vorobjev |
| Abstract |
There is a rapidly growing body of evidence that production of microvesicles (MVs) is a universal feature of cellular life. MVs can incorporate microRNA (miRNA), mRNA, mtDNA, DNA and retrotransposons, camouflage viruses/viral components from immune surveillance, and transfer cargo between cells. These properties make MVs an essential player in intercellular communication. Increasing evidence supports the notion that MVs can also act as long-distance vehicles for RNA molecules and participate in metabolic synchronization and reprogramming eukaryotic cells including stem and germinal cells. MV ability to carry on DNA and their general distribution makes them attractive candidates for horizontal gene transfer, particularly between multi-cellular organisms and their parasites; this suggests important implications for the co-evolution of parasites and their hosts. In this review, we provide current understanding of the roles played by MVs in intracellular pathogens and parasitic infections. We also discuss the possible role of MVs in co-infection and host shifting. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Kazakhstan | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 191 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 21% |
| Researcher | 34 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 38 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 79 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 37 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 17 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 35 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 September 2013.
All research outputs
#14,175,799
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#2,694
of 6,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,547
of 280,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#43
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,317 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 280,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.