↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Therapeutic Administration of Broadly Neutralizing FI6 Antibody Reveals Lack of Interaction Between Human IgG1 and Pig Fc Receptors
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00865
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Influenza virus infection is a significant global health threat. Because of the lack of cross-protective universal vaccines, short time window during which antivirals are effective and drug resistance, new therapeutic anti-influenza strategies are required. Broadly, cross-protective antibodies that target conserved sites in the hemagglutinin (HA) stem region have been proposed as therapeutic agents. FI6 is the first proven such monoclonal antibody to bind to H1-H16 and is protective in mice and ferrets. Multiple studies have shown that Fc-dependent mechanisms are essential for FI6 in vivo efficacy. Here, we show that therapeutic administration of FI6 either intravenously or by aerosol to pigs did not reduce viral load in nasal swabs or broncho-alveolar lavage, but aerosol delivery of FI6 reduced gross pathology significantly. We demonstrate that pig Fc receptors do not bind human IgG1 and that FI6 did not mediate antibody-dependent cytotoxicity (ADCC) with pig PBMC, confirming that ADCC is an important mechanism of protection by anti-stem antibodies in vivo. Enhanced respiratory disease, which has been associated with pigs with cross-reactive non-neutralizing anti-HA antibodies, did not occur after FI6 administration. Our results also show that in vitro neutralizing antibody responses are not a robust correlate of protection for the control of influenza infection and pathology in a natural host model.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 43 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 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 8 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 21 49%
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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#28,771,568
of 34,546,575 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#31,751
of 44,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,280
of 371,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#650
of 724 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,546,575 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 44,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. 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 371,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 724 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.