↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of a recombinant multiepitope based antigen for detection of Toxoplasma gondii specific antibodies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
An evaluation of a recombinant multiepitope based antigen for detection of Toxoplasma gondii specific antibodies
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2920-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khalid Hajissa, Robaiza Zakaria, Rapeah Suppian, Zeehaida Mohamed

Abstract

The inefficiency of the current tachyzoite antigen-based serological assays for the serodiagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii infection mandates the need for acquirement of reliable and standard diagnostic reagents. Recently, epitope-based antigens have emerged as an alternative diagnostic marker for the achievement of highly sensitive and specific capture antigens. In this study, the diagnostic utility of a recombinant multiepitope antigen (USM.TOXO1) for the serodiagnosis of human toxoplasmosis was evaluated. An indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was developed to evaluate the usefulness of USM.TOXO1 antigen for the detection of IgG antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii in human sera. Whereas the reactivity of the developed antigen against IgM antibody was evaluated by western blot and Dot enzyme immunoassay (dot-EIA) analysis. The diagnostic performance of the new antigens in IgG ELISA was achieved at the maximum values of 85.43% and 81.25% for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity respectively. The USM.TOXO1 was also proven to be reactive with anti- T. gondii IgM antibody. This finding makes the USM.TOXO1 antigen an attractive candidate for improving the toxoplasmosis serodiagnosis and demonstrates that multiepitope antigens could be a potential and promising diagnostic marker for the development of high sensitive and accurate assays.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 33%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Professor 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 33%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Other 0 0%

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 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#10,963,057
of 12,371,405 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,970
of 4,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,347
of 350,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#266
of 337 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,371,405 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,561 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 350,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 337 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.