↓ Skip to main content

TH17 Cells in Autoimmunity and Immunodeficiency: Protective or Pathogenic?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
TH17 Cells in Autoimmunity and Immunodeficiency: Protective or Pathogenic?
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2012.00129
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashish K. Marwaha, Nicole J. Leung, Alicia N. McMurchy, Megan K. Levings

Abstract

In 2005 a newly discovered T helper cell subset that secreted interleukin (IL)-17 became the center of attention in immunology. Initial studies painted Th17 cells as the culprit for destruction in many different autoimmune and auto-inflammatory diseases. Subsequently, the discovery of patients with primary immunodeficiencies in the IL-17 pathway taught us that Th17 cells have a critical role in defense against certain fungal and bacterial infections. Moreover, the paradoxical exacerbation of Crohn's disease in the clinical trials of a Secukinumab (AIN457), a fully human neutralizing antibody to IL-17A, has cast into doubt a universal pro-inflammatory and harmful role for Th17 cells. Evidence now suggests that depending on the environment Th17 cells can alter their differentiation program, ultimately giving rise to either protective or pro-inflammatory cells. In this review we will summarize the evidence from patients with immunodeficiencies, autoimmune, or auto-inflammatory diseases that teaches us how the pro-inflammatory versus protective function of Th17 cells varies within the context of different human diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
United States 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 130 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 21%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 17 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 10%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 21 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,047,316
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#7,765
of 31,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,828
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#36
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 250,101 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.