↓ Skip to main content

Cell therapy for immunosuppression after kidney transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Cell therapy for immunosuppression after kidney transplantation
Published in
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00423-015-1313-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Morath, Anita Schmitt, Martin Zeier, Michael Schmitt, Flavius Sandra-Petrescu, Gerhard Opelz, Peter Terness, Matthias Schaier, Christian Kleist

Abstract

To give an overview over cell therapeutic approaches to immunosuppression in clinical kidney transplantation. A focus is on myeloid suppressor cell therapy by mitomycin C-induced cells (MICs). Literature review with an emphasis on already existing therapies. Several cell therapeutic approaches to immunosuppression and donor-specific unresponsiveness are now being tested in early phase I and phase II trials in clinical kidney transplantation. Cell products such as regulatory T cells or regulatory macrophages, or other myeloid suppressor cell therapies, may either consist of donor-specific, third-party, or autologous cell preparations. Major problems are the identification of the suppressive cell populations and their expansion to have sufficient amount of cells to achieve donor unresponsiveness (e.g., with regulatory T cells). We show a simple and safe way to establish donor unresponsiveness in living-donor kidney transplantation by MIC therapy. A phase I clinical trial is now under way to test the safety and efficacy of this cell therapeutic approach. Cell therapeutic approaches to immunosuppression after kidney transplantation may revolutionize clinical transplantation in the future.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,746,181
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#492
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,659
of 264,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 264,344 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 50% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.