↓ Skip to main content

Apportioning Blame: Autoreactive CD4+ and CD8+ T Cells in Type 1 Diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Apportioning Blame: Autoreactive CD4+ and CD8+ T Cells in Type 1 Diabetes
Published in
Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00005-016-0452-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rubén Varela-Calvino, Cristina Calviño-Sampedro, Iria Gómez-Touriño, Oscar J. Cordero

Abstract

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is one of the most studied archetypal organ-specific autoimmune diseases. Although many clinical, epidemiological, and pathological characteristics have been described, there are still important issues which need to be resolved as these will have a major impact on the development of future antigen-specific immunotherapies. An important question relates to T lymphocytes in the development of the disease, in particular their role in the destruction of insulin-producing beta cells. Since the discovery that certain class II histocompatibility complex molecules (HLA) are linked to the development of T1D, much research has focused on CD4(+) helper T lymphocytes; however, recent studies highlight class I HLA molecules as an independent risk factor; hence, research into the role played by CD8(+) cytotoxic T lymphocytes has gained momentum. In this review, we summarize recent studies clarifying the role played by both sets of autoreactive T lymphocytes in T1D, discuss the targets recognized by these cells and their phenotype in T1D patients. Finally, we will examine the possible generation of regulatory CD8(+) T lymphocytes upon different immuno-intervention strategies.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 14 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 7 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 17 47%
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 22 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis
#281
of 385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#312,210
of 422,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 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 385 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 422,244 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.