| Title |
Need of cost-effective vaccines in developing countries: What plant biotechnology can offer?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-1713-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad Tahir Waheed, Muhammad Sameeullah, Faheem Ahmed Khan, Tahira Syed, Manzoor Ilahi, Johanna Gottschamel, Andreas Günter Lössl |
| Abstract |
To treat current infectious diseases, different therapies are used that include drugs or vaccines or both. Currently, the world is facing an increasing problem of drug resistance from many pathogenic microorganisms. In majority of cases, when vaccines are used, formulations consist of live attenuated microorganisms. This poses an additional risk of infection in immunocompromised patients and people suffering from malnutrition in developing countries. Therefore, there is need to improve drug therapy as well as to develop next generation vaccines, in particular against infectious diseases with highest mortality rates. For patients in developing countries, costs related to treatments are one of the major hurdles to reduce the disease burden. In many cases, use of prophylactic vaccines can help to control the incidence of infectious diseases. In the present review, we describe some infectious diseases with high impact on health of people in low and middle income countries. We discuss the prospects of plants as alternative platform for the development of next-generation subunit vaccines that can be a cost-effective source for mass immunization of people in developing countries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 29 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,176,658
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#452
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,113
of 395,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#36
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 395,300 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.