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 |
Brucella Antibodies in Alaskan True Seals and Eared Seals—Two Different Stories
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fvets.2018.00008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ingebjørg H. Nymo, Rolf Rødven, Kimberlee Beckmen, Anett K. Larsen, Morten Tryland, Lori Quakenbush, Jacques Godfroid |
| Abstract |
Brucella pinnipedialis was first isolated from true seals in 1994 and from eared seals in 2008. Although few pathological findings have been associated with infection in true seals, reproductive pathology including abortions, and the isolation of the zoonotic strain type 27 have been documented in eared seals. In this study, aBrucellaenzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the Rose Bengal test (RBT) were initially compared for 206 serum samples and a discrepancy between the tests was found. Following removal of lipids from the serum samples, ELISA results were unaltered while the agreement between the tests was improved, indicating that serum lipids affected the initial RBT outcome. For the remaining screening, we used ELISA to investigate the presence ofBrucellaantibodies in sera of 231 eared and 1,412 true seals from Alaskan waters sampled between 1975 and 2011. In eared seals,Brucellaantibodies were found in two Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) (2%) and none of the 107 Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). The low seroprevalence in eared seals indicate a low level of exposure or lack of susceptibility to infection. Alternatively, mortality due to theBrucellainfection may remove seropositive animals from the population.Brucellaantibodies were detected in all true seal species investigated; harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) (25%), spotted seals (Phoca largha) (19%), ribbon seals (Histriophoca fasciata) (16%), and ringed seals (Pusa hispida hispida) (14%). There was a low seroprevalence among pups, a higher seroprevalence among juveniles, and a subsequent decreasing probability of seropositivity with age in harbor seals. Similar patterns were present for the other true seal species; however, solid conclusions could not be made due to sample size. This pattern is in accordance with previous reports onB. pinnipedialisinfections in true seals and may suggest environmental exposure toB. pinnipedialisat the juvenile stage, with a following clearance of infection. Furthermore, analyses by region showed minor differences in the probability of being seropositive for harbor seals from different regions regardless of the local seal population trend, signifying that theBrucellainfection may not cause significant mortality in these populations. In conclusion, theBrucellainfection pattern is very different for eared and true seals. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 18% |
| Professor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 32% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 7 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,584,192
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#4,171
of 6,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,740
of 440,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#63
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 440,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.