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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A human natural killer cell subset provides an innate source of IL-22 for mucosal immunity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nature07537 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marina Cella, Anja Fuchs, William Vermi, Fabio Facchetti, Karel Otero, Jochen K. M. Lennerz, Jason M. Doherty, Jason C. Mills, Marco Colonna |
| Abstract |
Natural killer (NK) cells are classically viewed as lymphocytes that provide innate surveillance against virally infected cells and tumour cells through the release of cytolytic mediators and interferon (IFN)-gamma. In humans, blood CD56(dim) NK cells specialize in the lysis of cell targets. In the lymph nodes, CD56(bright) NK cells secrete IFN-gamma cooperating with dendritic cells and T cells in the generation of adaptive responses. Here we report the characterization of a human NK cell subset located in mucosa-associated lymphoid tissues, such as tonsils and Peyer's patches, which is hard-wired to secrete interleukin (IL)-22, IL-26 and leukaemia inhibitory factor. These NK cells, which we refer to as NK-22 cells, are triggered by acute exposure to IL-23. In vitro, NK-22-secreted cytokines stimulate epithelial cells to secrete IL-10, proliferate and express a variety of mitogenic and anti-apoptotic molecules. NK-22 cells are also found in mouse mucosa-associated lymphoid tissues and appear in the small intestine lamina propria during bacterial infection, suggesting that NK-22 cells provide an innate source of IL-22 that may help constrain inflammation and protect mucosal sites. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 610 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 2% |
| Germany | 5 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Argentina | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 587 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 145 | 24% |
| Researcher | 127 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 67 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 53 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 30 | 5% |
| Other | 97 | 16% |
| Unknown | 91 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 173 | 28% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 139 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 107 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 54 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 1% |
| Other | 28 | 5% |
| Unknown | 102 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,865,219
of 23,495,502 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#40,352
of 92,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,028
of 93,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#143
of 575 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,495,502 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 92,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 100.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 93,901 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 575 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.