↓ Skip to main content

Albumin Counteracts Immune-Suppressive Effects of Lipid Mediators in Patients With Advanced Liver Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
69 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.
Article details
Title
Albumin Counteracts Immune-Suppressive Effects of Lipid Mediators in Patients With Advanced Liver Disease
Published in
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, August 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.08.027
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Patients with acute decompensation and acute on chronic liver failure (AD/ACLF) have immune dysfunction, which increases their risk for infections; however there are no effective treatments to restore their immune function. We investigated whether the potentially immune-restorative effects of albumin are mediated by its effects on prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and other lipids. We analyzed bloods samples from 45 of 79 patients with AD/ACLF and serum levels of albumin less than 30g/L for whom infusion of 20% human albumin solution (HAS) increased serum levels of albumin 30 g/L or more in a feasibility study of effects of 20% HAS. Immune function was determined by comparison of macrophage function following addition of plasma samples. We also used samples from 12 healthy individuals. We measured binding of plasma proteins to PGE2 and serum levels of endotoxin (LPS) and cytokines; using 10 patients' samples, we investigated the effects of PGE2 inhibitors. We performed a comprehensive lipid metabolomic analysis using samples from 10 different patients, before and after HAS administration. At baseline, AD/ACLF patient plasma induced significantly lower production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) by healthy macrophages than plasma from healthy individuals (P<.0001). Plasma from patients after HAS infusion induced significantly higher levels of TNF production by macrophages (19.5±4.8 ng/ml) compared with plasma collected before treatment (17.7±4.5 ng/ml) (P=.0013). There was a significantly lower proportion of plasma protein (albumin) binding to PGE2 from AD/ACLF patients plasma (mean 61.9%) compared to plasma from controls (77.1%) (P=.0012). AD/ACLF plasma protein binding to PGE2 increased following HAS treatment compared with baseline (mean increase 8.7%,P<.0001). Circulating levels of PGE2, LPS, and inflammatory or anti-inflammatory cytokines were higher in patients with AD/ACLF than healthy volunteers. Unexpectedly, HAS infusion had no effect on mediator levels. Principal component analysis of baseline levels of lipids that induce or resolve inflammation identified 2 distinct groups of patients that differed according to baseline plasma level of LPS. Sample analyses after HAS treatment indicated that albumin regulates circulating levels of lipid mediators, but this effect was distinct in each group. Analysis of blood samples from AD/ACLF patients participating in a feasibility study of 20% HAS infusions has shown that infusions to raise serum albumin above 30g/L reversed plasma-mediated immune dysfunction by binding and inactivating PGE2. We also describe a method to classify the inflammatory response in AD/ACLF, based on lipid profile, that could improve identification of patients most likely to respond to HAS treatment. A randomized controlled trial is needed to determine whether these effects of HAS reduce infections in AD/ACLF.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 22 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 25 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 15 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,046,454
of 34,547,233 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#1,134
of 6,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,633
of 354,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#8
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,547,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 354,956 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.