↓ Skip to main content

Utility, Limitations, and Future of Non-Human Primates for Dengue Research and Vaccine Development

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Utility, Limitations, and Future of Non-Human Primates for Dengue Research and Vaccine Development
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00452
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos A. Sariol, Laura J. White

Abstract

Dengue is considered the most important emerging, human arboviruses, with worldwide distribution in the tropics. Unfortunately, there are no licensed dengue vaccines available or specific anti-viral drugs. The development of a dengue vaccine faces unique challenges. The four serotypes co-circulate in endemic areas, and pre-existing immunity to one serotype does not protect against infection with other serotypes, and actually may enhance severity of disease. One foremost constraint to test the efficacy of a dengue vaccine is the lack of an animal model that adequately recapitulates the clinical manifestations of a dengue infection in humans. In spite of this limitation, non-human primates (NHP) are considered the best available animal model to evaluate dengue vaccine candidates due to their genetic relatedness to humans and their ability to develop a viremia upon infection and a robust immune response similar to that in humans. Therefore, most dengue vaccines candidates are tested in primates before going into clinical trials. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of published studies on dengue vaccine evaluations using the NHP model, and discuss critical parameters affecting the usefulness of the model. In the light of recent clinical data, we assess the ability of the NHP model to predict immunological parameters of vaccine performances in humans and discuss parameters that should be further examined as potential correlates of protection. Finally, we propose some guidelines toward a more standardized use of the model to maximize its usefulness and to better compare the performance of vaccine candidates from different research groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Ecuador 1 1%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Student > Master 11 11%
Other 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 September 2014.
All research outputs
#20,015,146
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#22,671
of 31,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,686
of 263,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#113
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 263,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.