↓ Skip to main content

Gene Therapy for HIV and Chronic Infections

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 4: Gene Therapy Strategies to Block HIV-1 Replication by RNA Interference.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
10 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.
Chapter title
Gene Therapy Strategies to Block HIV-1 Replication by RNA Interference.
Chapter number 4
Book title
Gene Therapy for HIV and Chronic Infections
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2432-5_4
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-2431-8, 978-1-4939-2432-5
Authors

Elena Herrera-Carrillo, Ben Berkhout

Abstract

The cellular mechanism of RNA interference (RNAi) plays an antiviral role in many organisms and can be used for the development of therapeutic strategies against viral pathogens. Persistent infections like the one caused by the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) likely require a durable gene therapy approach. The continuous expression of the inhibitory RNA molecules in T cells is needed to effectively block HIV-1 replication. We discuss here several issues, ranging from the choice of RNAi inhibitor and vector system, finding the best target in the HIV-1 RNA genome, alternatively by targeting host mRNAs that encode important viral cofactors, to the setup of appropriate preclinical test systems. Finally, we briefly discuss the relevance of this topic for other viral pathogens that cause a chronic infection in humans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Student > Master 2 20%
Other 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 10%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,402,666
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,311
of 4,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,771
of 353,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#163
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 353,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.