↓ Skip to main content

Fatal Leishmaniasis in the Absence of TNF Despite a Strong Th1 Response

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Fatal Leishmaniasis in the Absence of TNF Despite a Strong Th1 Response
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01520
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip D. Fromm, Jessica C. Kling, Annika Remke, Christian Bogdan, Heinrich Körner

Abstract

Induction of inducible nitric oxide synthase in mononuclear phagocytes by IFN-γ and innate tumor necrosis factor (TNF) provide the basis for an effective immune response to the intracellular parasite Leishmania (L.) major. In previous experiments, we observed a fatal visceral form of leishmaniasis in L. major-infected C57BL/6 TNF(-/-) mice. To further delineate the protective function of TNF and its receptor requirements, we comparatively assessed L. major-infected C57BL/6 mice that were either deficient for membrane and soluble TNF (Tnf (-) (/) (-)), for soluble TNF alone (memTnf(Δ/Δ) ), or the TNF receptors type 1 (Tnfr1 (-) (/) (-)) or type 2 (Tnfr2 (-) (/) (-)). We detected locally and systemically increased levels of the cytokine IFN-γ in the absence of the TNF-TNFR1-signaling pathway. An analysis of transcription factors and cytokines revealed that activated Tnf (-) (/) (-) CD4(+) T cells displayed a highly active Th1 phenotype with a strong usage of the T cell receptor Vβ5.1/2. From these data we conclude that the fatal outcome of L. major infection in Tnf (-) (/) (-) mice does not result from a skewed or deficient Th1 differentiation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 27%
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 22 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,302,535
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,434
of 24,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#332,146
of 395,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#430
of 483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 395,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 483 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.