| Title |
Characterization of a Feline Influenza A(H7N2) Virus - Volume 24, Number 1—January 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2401.171240 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masato Hatta, Gongxun Zhong, Yuwei Gao, Noriko Nakajima, Shufang Fan, Shiho Chiba, Kathleen M. Deering, Mutsumi Ito, Masaki Imai, Maki Kiso, Sumiho Nakatsu, Tiago J. Lopes, Andrew J. Thompson, Ryan McBride, David L. Suarez, Catherine A. Macken, Shigeo Sugita, Gabriele Neumann, Hideki Hasegawa, James C. Paulson, Kathy L. Toohey-Kurth, Yoshihiro Kawaoka |
| Abstract |
During December 2016-February 2017, influenza A viruses of the H7N2 subtype infected ≈500 cats in animal shelters in New York, NY, USA, indicating virus transmission among cats. A veterinarian who treated the animals also became infected with feline influenza A(H7N2) virus and experienced respiratory symptoms. To understand the pathogenicity and transmissibility of these feline H7N2 viruses in mammals, we characterized them in vitro and in vivo. Feline H7N2 subtype viruses replicated in the respiratory organs of mice, ferrets, and cats without causing severe lesions. Direct contact transmission of feline H7N2 subtype viruses was detected in ferrets and cats; in cats, exposed animals were also infected via respiratory droplet transmission. These results suggest that the feline H7N2 subtype viruses could spread among cats and also infect humans. Outbreaks of the feline H7N2 viruses could, therefore, pose a risk to public health. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 10% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 12 | 26% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 21 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 22 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,391,626
of 24,557,820 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,578
of 9,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,572
of 452,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#29
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,557,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 452,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.