| Title |
Where, How, and When: Positioning Posttranslational Modification Within Type 1 Diabetes Pathogenesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-016-0752-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rene J. McLaughlin, Matthew P. Spindler, Menno van Lummel, Bart O. Roep |
| Abstract |
Autoreactive T cells specific for islet autoantigens develop in type 1 diabetes (T1D) by escaping central as well as peripheral tolerance. The current paradigm for development of islet autoimmunity is just beginning to include the contribution of posttranslationally modified (PTM) islet autoantigens, for which the immune system may be ignorant rather than tolerant. As a result, PTM is the latest promising lead in the quest to understand how the break in peripheral tolerance occurs in T1D. However, it is not completely clear how, where, or when these modifications take place. Currently, only a few PTM antigens have been well-thought-out or identified in T1D, and methods for identifying and characterizing new PTM antigens are rapidly improving. This review will address both reported and potential new sources of modified islet autoantigens and discuss how islet neo-autoantigen generation may contribute to the development and progression of T1D. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 27% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
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 03 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#771
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,389
of 309,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#21
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 309,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.