↓ Skip to main content

Platelets and viruses: an ambivalent relationship

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, December 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Platelets and viruses: an ambivalent relationship
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, December 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00018-009-0209-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Flaujac, Siham Boukour, Elisabeth Cramer-Bordé

Abstract

Thrombocytopenia is a frequent complication of viral infections providing evidence that interaction of platelets with viruses is an important pathophysiological phenomenon. Multiple mechanisms are involved depending on the nature of the viruses involved. These include immunological platelet destruction, inappropriate platelet activation and consumption, and impaired megakaryopoiesis. Viruses bind platelets through specific receptors and identified ligands, which lead to mutual alterations of both the platelet host and the viral aggressor. We have shown that HIV-1 viruses are internalized specifically in platelets and megakaryocytes, where they can be either sheltered, unaltered (with potential transfer of the viruses into target organs), or come in contact with platelet secretory products leading to virus destruction and facilitated platelet clearance. In this issue, we have reviewed the various pathways that platelets use in order to interact with viruses, HIV and others. This review also shows that more work is still needed to precisely identify platelet roles in viral infections, and to answer the challenge of viral safety in platelet transfusion.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 90 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 17 19%
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 28 March 2012.
All research outputs
#16,031,680
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#3,071
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,788
of 169,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#23
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 169,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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.