↓ Skip to main content

WidespreadTreponema pallidumInfection in Nonhuman Primates, Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
WidespreadTreponema pallidumInfection in Nonhuman Primates, Tanzania
Published in
Emerging Infectious Diseases, June 2018
DOI 10.3201/eid2406.180037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Idrissa S. Chuma, Emmanuel K. Batamuzi, D. Anthony Collins, Robert D. Fyumagwa, Luisa K. Hallmaier-Wacker, Rudovick R. Kazwala, Julius D. Keyyu, Inyasi A. Lejora, Iddi F. Lipende, Simone Lüert, Filipa M.D. Paciência, Alexander Piel, Fiona A. Stewart, Dietmar Zinner, Christian Roos, Sascha Knauf

Abstract

We investigated Treponema pallidum infection in 8 nonhuman primate species (289 animals) in Tanzania during 2015-2017. We used a serologic treponemal test to detect antibodies against the bacterium. Infection was further confirmed from tissue samples of skin-ulcerated animals by 3 independent PCRs (polA, tp47, and TP_0619). Our findings indicate that T. pallidum infection is geographically widespread in Tanzania and occurs in several species (olive baboons, yellow baboons, vervet monkeys, and blue monkeys). We found the bacterium at 11 of 14 investigated geographic locations. Anogenital ulceration was the most common clinical manifestation; orofacial lesions also were observed. Molecular data show that nonhuman primates in Tanzania are most likely infected with T. pallidum subsp. pertenue-like strains, which could have implications for human yaws eradication.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 8 28%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Other 8 28%
Unknown 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 05 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,098,209
of 15,781,576 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,305
of 7,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,352
of 279,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#26
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,781,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 279,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.