↓ Skip to main content

Loss of Bladder Epithelium Induced by Cytolytic Mast Cell Granules

Overview of attention for article published in Immunity, December 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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.
Title
Loss of Bladder Epithelium Induced by Cytolytic Mast Cell Granules
Published in
Immunity, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.11.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hae Woong Choi, Samantha E. Bowen, Yuxuan Miao, Cheryl Y. Chan, Edward A. Miao, Magnus Abrink, Adam J. Moeser, Soman N. Abraham

Abstract

Programmed death and shedding of epithelial cells is a powerful defense mechanism to reduce bacterial burden during infection but this activity cannot be indiscriminate because of the critical barrier function of the epithelium. We report that during cystitis, shedding of infected bladder epithelial cells (BECs) was preceded by the recruitment of mast cells (MCs) directly underneath the superficial epithelium where they docked and extruded their granules. MCs were responding to interleukin-1β (IL-1β) secreted by BECs after inflammasome and caspase-1 signaling. Upon uptake of granule-associated chymase (mouse MC protease 4 [mMCPT4]), BECs underwent caspase-1-associated cytolysis and exfoliation. Thus, infected epithelial cells require a specific cue for cytolysis from recruited sentinel inflammatory cells before shedding.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 23 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#3,188,056
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Immunity
#1,985
of 4,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,783
of 420,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Immunity
#37
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 420,258 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.