Despite an increased understanding of the cellular and molecular biology of the CFTR Cl- channel, it is not known how defective Cl- transport across airway epithelia causes chronic bacterial infections in cystic fibrosis (CF) airways. Here, we show that common CF pathogens were killed when added to the apical surface of normal airway epithelia. In contrast, these bacteria multiplied on CF epithelia. We found that bactericidal activity was present in airway surface fluid of both normal and CF epithelia. However, because bacterial killing required a low NaCl concentration and because CF surface fluid has a high NaCl concentration, CF epithelia failed to kill bacteria. This defect was corrected by reducing the NaCl concentration on CF epithelia. These data explain how the loss of CFTR Cl- channels may lead to lung disease and suggest new approaches to therapy.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 October 2025.
All research outputs
#3,168,098
of 27,774,969 outputs
Outputs from Cell
#7,430
of 17,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,598
of 30,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell
#9
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,774,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 61.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 30,553 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
