↓ Skip to main content

Chicken anaemia virus evades host immune responses in transformed lymphocytes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Virology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Chicken anaemia virus evades host immune responses in transformed lymphocytes
Published in
Journal of General Virology, March 2018
DOI 10.1099/jgv.0.001011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Efstathios S Giotis, Alistair Scott, Lisa Rothwell, Tuanjun Hu, Richard Talbot, Daniel Todd, David W Burt, Elizabeth J Glass, Pete Kaiser

Abstract

Chicken anaemia virus (CAV) is a lymphotropic virus that causes anaemia and immunosuppression in chickens. Previously, we proposed that CAV evades host antiviral responses in vivo by disrupting T-cell signalling, but the precise cellular targets and modes of action remain elusive. In this study, we examined gene expression in Marek's disease virus-transformed chicken T-cell line MSB-1 after infection with CAV using both a custom 5K immune-focused microarray and quantitative real-time PCR at 24, 48 and 72 h post-infection. The data demonstrate an intricate equilibrium between CAV and the host gene expression, displaying subtle but significant modulation of transcripts involved in the T-cell, inflammation and NF-κB signalling cascades. CAV efficiently blocked the induction of type-I interferons and interferon-stimulated genes at 72 h. The cell expression pattern implies that CAV subverts host antiviral responses and that the transformed environment of MSB-1 cells offers an opportunistic advantage for virus growth.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 29%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Professor 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Virology
#5,711
of 6,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,538
of 331,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Virology
#30
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 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 6,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 331,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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.