↓ Skip to main content

Cell death induced by granzyme C

Overview of attention for article published in Blood, December 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Cell death induced by granzyme C
Published in
Blood, December 2002
DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-08-2485
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Although the functions of granzymes A and B have been defined, the functions of the other highly expressed granzymes (Gzms) of murine cytotoxic lymphocytes (C, D, and F) have not yet been evaluated. In this report, we describe the ability of murine GzmC (which is most closely related to human granzyme H) to cause cell death. The induction of death requires its protease activity and is characterized by the rapid externalization of phosphatidylserine, nuclear condensation and collapse, and single-stranded DNA nicking. The kinetics of these events are similar to those caused by granzyme B, and its potency (defined on a molar basis) is also equivalent. The induction of death did not involve the activation of caspases, the cleavage of BID, or the activation of the CAD nuclease. However, granzyme C did cause rapid mitochondrial swelling and depolarization in intact cells or in isolated mitochondria, and this mitochondrial damage was not prevented by cyclosporin A pretreatment. These results suggest that granzyme C rapidly induces target cell death by attacking nuclear and mitochondrial targets and that these targets are distinct from those used by granzyme B to cause classical apoptosis.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 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 %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Blood
#14,241
of 33,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,499
of 136,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Blood
#103
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 136,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.