↓ Skip to main content

Science

An ancient defense system eliminates unfit cells from developing tissues during cell competition

Overview of attention for article published in Science, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
355 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
An ancient defense system eliminates unfit cells from developing tissues during cell competition
Published in
Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1126/science.1258236
Pubmed ID
Authors

S N Meyer, M Amoyel, C Bergantiños, C de la Cova, C Schertel, K Basler, L A Johnston

Abstract

Developing tissues that contain mutant or compromised cells present risks to animal health. Accordingly, the appearance of a population of suboptimal cells in a tissue elicits cellular interactions that prevent their contribution to the adult. Here we report that this quality control process, cell competition, uses specific components of the evolutionarily ancient and conserved innate immune system to eliminate Drosophila cells perceived as unfit. We find that Toll-related receptors (TRRs) and the cytokine Spätzle (Spz) lead to NFκB-dependent apoptosis. Diverse "loser" cells require different TRRs and NFκB factors and activate distinct pro-death genes, implying that the particular response is stipulated by the competitive context. Our findings demonstrate a functional repurposing of components of TRRs and NFκB signaling modules in the surveillance of cell fitness during development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 355 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Japan 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 337 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 95 27%
Researcher 72 20%
Student > Master 31 9%
Student > Bachelor 29 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 5%
Other 51 14%
Unknown 61 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 127 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 102 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 3%
Engineering 10 3%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 65 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. 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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#366,609
of 25,085,910 outputs
Outputs from Science
#9,203
of 80,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,250
of 372,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#124
of 839 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,085,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 65.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 372,270 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 839 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.