↓ Skip to main content

Cancer despite immunosurveillance: immunoselection and immunosubversion

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Immunology, September 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
20 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1061 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1048 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
Cancer despite immunosurveillance: immunoselection and immunosubversion
Published in
Nature Reviews Immunology, September 2006
DOI 10.1038/nri1936
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurence Zitvogel, Antoine Tesniere, Guido Kroemer

Abstract

Numerous innate and adaptive immune effector cells and molecules participate in the recognition and destruction of cancer cells, a process that is known as cancer immunosurveillance. But cancer cells avoid such immunosurveillance through the outgrowth of poorly immunogenic tumour-cell variants (immunoselection) and through subversion of the immune system (immunosubversion). At the early stages of carcinogenesis, cell-intrinsic barriers to tumour development seem to be associated with stimulation of an active antitumour immune response, whereas overt tumour development seems to correlate with changes in the immunogenic properties of tumour cells. The permanent success of treatments for cancer might depend on using immunogenic chemotherapy to re-establish antitumour immune responses.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,048 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 <1%
Italy 4 <1%
Mexico 4 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Other 11 1%
Unknown 1009 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 211 20%
Researcher 167 16%
Student > Master 160 15%
Student > Bachelor 112 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 53 5%
Other 155 15%
Unknown 190 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 278 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 200 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 170 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 96 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 2%
Other 66 6%
Unknown 213 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,124,704
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Immunology
#842
of 2,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,179
of 89,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Immunology
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 89,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.