↓ Skip to main content

Carbohydrate-Based Vaccines

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 11: Carbohydrate-Based Vaccines
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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.
Chapter title
Carbohydrate-Based Vaccines
Chapter number 11
Book title
Carbohydrate-Based Vaccines
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2874-3_11
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-2873-6, 978-1-4939-2874-3
Authors

Johannssen, Timo, Lepenies, Bernd, Timo Johannssen, Bernd Lepenies

Abstract

Modern vaccines such as recombinant proteins or nucleic acids are usually of pure origin, enhancing their tolerability and overall safety. However, this purity often renders them less immunogenic, creating the need for potent adjuvants. Carbohydrates are promising candidates to fulfill this role as they enable direct targeting of dendritic cells and modulation of adaptive immunity. C-type lectin receptors (CLRs) comprise a major group of carbohydrate binding receptors. As they are predominantly expressed by cells of innate immunity, CLR targeting can enhance or dampen early stages of cytokine secretion and antigen presentation, thus modulate the activation and differentiation of T cells. Here, we provide a protocol for the identification of novel CLR ligands by glycan array using recombinant CLR-Fc chimeras followed by the covalent conjugation of carbohydrate CLR ligands to the model antigen ovalbumin (OVA). The resulting glycoconjugates are subsequently used to evaluate T cell activation in vitro and immunomodulation in vivo.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 40%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Unknown 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 40%
Neuroscience 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,844,479
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#4,699
of 13,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,175
of 353,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#298
of 997 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,127 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 353,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 997 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.