| Title |
Vaccine Strategies in Gliomas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Neurology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11940-018-0498-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Platten, Lukas Bunse, Dennis Riehl, Theresa Bunse, Katharina Ochs, Wolfgang Wick |
| Abstract |
To discuss the current state of glioma vaccine development and highlight the challenges associated with clinical implementation of these approaches. Vaccination strategies against gliomas have matured considerably during the past years, although proof-of efficacy from controlled clinical trials is still lacking. Advances in antigen discovery, including the definition of neoepitopes including epidermal growth factor receptor variant III (EGFRvIII), isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)1R132H and Histone (H)3.3K27M, using multi-omic approaches and computational algorithms allow targeting single antigens, but also implementing truly personalized approaches. In addition, new concepts of vaccine manufacturing including RNA and DNA vaccines improve immunogenicity and applicability in personalized settings. As an increasing amount of clinical data defy the concept of the central nervous system (CNS) as a strictly immunoprivileged site, novel vaccine approaches enter the clinic including critical efforts to identify biomarkers of response and resistance and strategies to overcome the immunosuppressive glioma microenvironment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,381,804
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#283
of 471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,237
of 329,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Neurology
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 329,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.