↓ Skip to main content

Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus in Zoos: A Perspective from the Veterinary Team

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus in Zoos: A Perspective from the Veterinary Team
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01496
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jack J. Kottwitz, Melissa Ortiz

Abstract

The many different species in close proximity make zoological collections a unique environment for disease transmission. Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV) is of special concern with zoos due to the numerous exotic ruminant species that this virus can infect. BVDV occurs as both a non-cytopathic and a cytopathic strain both of which are capable of infecting exotic ruminants. The cytopathic strain causes mucosal disease (MD) and death. Infection with the non-cytopathic strain may produce persistently infected (PI) animals. PI individuals may show vague clinical signs, including abortion. Management of BVDV in zoos should focus on identification of PI individuals and prevention of infection of other animals of the collection. Variability makes serological testing as the sole method of screening for BVDV infection undesirable in exotic ruminants. Combination testing provides a definitive answer, especially in sensitive wildlife. Use of a combination of antigen-capture ELISA (ACE) with haired skin, Real Time-PCR (RT-PCR) on whole blood, and antibody detection via serum neutralization has the greatest potential to identify PI animals. An animal that is positive on both ACE and RT-PCR, but is negative on serology should be considered highly suspicious of being a PI, and should be isolated and undergo repeat testing 4-6 weeks later to confirm positive status. This testing methodology also allows screening of pregnant and newborn animals. Isolation or culling may need to be considered in animals determined to be positive via combination testing. These decisions should only be made after careful consideration and evaluation, especially with endangered species.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Unspecified 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 26%
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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,136,219
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#17,681
of 25,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,177
of 396,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#318
of 462 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 396,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 462 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.