↓ Skip to main content

Association of Fasciola gigantica Co-infection With Bovine Tuberculosis Infection and Diagnosis in a Naturally Infected Cattle Population in Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Association of Fasciola gigantica Co-infection With Bovine Tuberculosis Infection and Diagnosis in a Naturally Infected Cattle Population in Africa
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert F. Kelly, Rebecca Callaby, Nkongho F. Egbe, Diana J. L. Williams, Ngu Ngwa Victor, Vincent N. Tanya, Melissa Sander, Lucy Ndip, Richard Ngandolo, Kenton L. Morgan, Ian G. Handel, Stella Mazeri, Adrian Muwonge, Barend M. de C Bronsvoort

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB), caused by Mycobacterium bovis, remains a major livestock and public health problem in both high and low-income countries. With the current absence of an effective vaccine, control in cattle populations is reliant on regular testing and removal of positive animals. However, surveillance and control are hampered by imperfect diagnostic tests that have poorly described properties in naturally infected populations. Recent research in cattle co-infected with the temperate liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica, has raised concerns about the performance of the intradermal skin test in high fluke incidence areas. Further, recent studies of parasitic co-infections have demonstrated their impact on Th1 and Th2 responses, concurrent disease pathology and susceptibility to mycobacterial infections. Here we report for the first time the association of co-infection with the tropical liver fluke, Fasciola gigantica, with the presence of bTB-like lesions and the IFN-γ response in naturally infected African cattle. After adjusting for age and sex we observed a complex interaction between fluke status and breed. Fulani cattle had a higher risk of having bTB-like lesions than the mixed breed group. The risk of bTB-like lesions increased in the mixed breed group if they had concurrent evidence of fluke pathology but was less clear in the coinfected Fulani breed. Further, we observed a slight decline in the IFN-γ levels in fluke infected animals. Finally we explored factors associated with IFN-γ false negative results compared to the presence of bTB-like lesions. Fulani cattle had a higher risk of having a false negative result compared to the mixed breed group. Further, the mixed breed cattle had an increased risk of being false negative if also co-infected with fluke. Interesting, as with the risk of bTB-like lesions, this association was less clear in the Fulani cattle with weak evidence of a slight decrease in risk of having a false negative test result when fluke pathology positive. This interesting interaction where different breeds appear to have different responses to co-infections is intriguing but further work is needed to confirm and understand more clearly the possible confounding effects of different other co-infections not measured here, breed, management or exposure risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 June 2019.
All research outputs
#5,716,994
of 26,379,745 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,097
of 8,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,172
of 349,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#23
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,379,745 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 349,646 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 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 74% of its contemporaries.