↓ Skip to main content

Type I interferons induced by radiation therapy mediate recruitment and effector function of CD8+ T cells

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
197 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
Title
Type I interferons induced by radiation therapy mediate recruitment and effector function of CD8+ T cells
Published in
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, December 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00262-013-1506-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne Y. H. Lim, Scott A. Gerber, Shawn P. Murphy, Edith M. Lord

Abstract

The need for an intact immune system for cancer radiation therapy to be effective suggests that radiation not only acts directly on the tumor but also indirectly, through the activation of host immune components. Recent studies demonstrated that endogenous type I interferons (type I IFNs) play a role in radiation-mediated anti-tumor immunity by enhancing the ability of dendritic cells to cross-prime CD8(+) T cells. However, it is still unclear to what extent endogenous type I IFNs contribute to the recruitment and function of CD8(+) T cells. Little is also known about the effects of type I IFNs on myeloid cells. In the current study, we demonstrate that type I and type II IFNs (IFN-γ) are both required for the increased production of CXCL10 (IP-10) chemokine by myeloid cells within the tumor after radiation treatment. Radiation-induced intratumoral IP-10 levels in turn correlate with tumor-infiltrating CD8(+) T cell numbers. Moreover, type I IFNs promote potent tumor-reactive CD8(+) T cells by directly affecting the phenotype, effector molecule production, and enhancing cytolytic activity. Using a unique inducible expression system to increase local levels of IFN-α exogenously, we show here that the capacity of radiation therapy to result in tumor control can be enhanced. Our preclinical approach to study the effects of local increase in IFN-α levels can be used to further optimize the combination therapy strategy in terms of dosing and scheduling, which may lead to better clinical outcome.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 26%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 38 27%
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 02 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
#2,149
of 2,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,484
of 306,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 306,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.