| Title |
Engaging Natural Killer T Cells as ‘Universal Helpers’ for Vaccination
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40265-016-0675-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary Speir, Ian F. Hermans, Robert Weinkove |
| Abstract |
Conventional vaccine adjuvants enhance peptide-specific T-cell and B-cell responses by modifying peptide stability or uptake or by binding to pattern-recognition receptors on antigen-presenting cells (APCs). This article discusses the application of a distinct mechanism of adjuvant activity: the activation of type I, or invariant, natural killer T (iNKT) cells to drive cellular and humoral immune responses. Using a semi-invariant T-cell receptor (TCR), iNKT cells recognize glycolipid antigens presented on cluster of differentiation (CD)-1d molecules. When their ligands are presented in concert with peptides, iNKT cells can provide T-cell help, 'licensing' APCs to augment peptide-specific T-cell and antibody responses. We discuss the potential benefits and limitations of exploiting iNKT cells as 'universal helpers' to enhance vaccine responses for the treatment and prevention of cancer and infectious diseases. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 10 | 26% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
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 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#18,498,050
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#2,993
of 3,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,080
of 420,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#27
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 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 3,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 420,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.