↓ Skip to main content

Detrimental Type I Interferon Signaling Dominates Protective AIM2 Inflammasome Responses during Francisella novicida Infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cell Reports, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Detrimental Type I Interferon Signaling Dominates Protective AIM2 Inflammasome Responses during Francisella novicida Infection
Published in
Cell Reports, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.096
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qifan Zhu, Si Ming Man, Rajendra Karki, R.K. Subbarao Malireddi, Thirumala-Devi Kanneganti

Abstract

Interferons (IFNs) and inflammasomes are essential mediators of anti-microbial immunity. Type I IFN signaling drives activation of the AIM2 inflammasome in macrophages; however, the relative contribution of IFNs and inflammasome responses in host defense is less understood. We report intact AIM2 inflammasome responses in mice lacking type I IFN signaling during infection with F. novicida. Lack of type I IFN signaling conferred protection to F. novicida infection in contrast to the increased susceptibility in AIM2-deficient mice. Mice lacking both AIM2 and IFNAR2 were protected against the infection. The detrimental effects of type I IFN signaling were due to its ability to induce activation of apoptotic caspases and cell death. These results demonstrate the contrasting effects of type I IFN signaling and AIM2 during F. novicida infection in vivo and indicate a dominant role for type I IFNs in mediating detrimental responses despite the protective AIM2 inflammasome responses.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 37%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Unspecified 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 21 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Unspecified 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,283,318
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cell Reports
#10,595
of 12,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,396
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Reports
#256
of 316 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. 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 344,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 316 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.