↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Granulocyte-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Activate Monocytes and Are Associated With Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00956
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To understand how extracellular vesicle (EV) subtypes differentially activate monocytes, a series of in vitro studies were performed. We found that plasma-EVs biased monocytes toward an M1 profile. Culturing monocytes with granulocyte-, monocyte-, and endothelial-EVs induced several pro-inflammatory cytokines. By contrast, platelet-EVs induced TGF-β and GM-CSF, and red blood cell (RBC)-EVs did not activate monocytes in vitro. The scavenger receptor CD36 was important for binding of RBC-EVs to monocytes, while blockade of CD36, CD163, CD206, TLR1, TLR2, and TLR4 did not affect binding of plasma-EVs to monocytes in vitro. To identify mortality risk factors, multiple soluble factors and EV subtypes were measured in patients' plasma at intensive care unit admission. Of 43 coagulation factors and cytokines measured, two were significantly associated with mortality, tissue plasminogen activator and cystatin C. Of 14 cellular markers quantified on EVs, 4 were early predictors of mortality, including the granulocyte marker CD66b. In conclusion, granulocyte-EVs have potent pro-inflammatory effects on monocytes in vitro. Furthermore, correlation of early granulocyte-EV levels with mortality in critically ill patients provides a potential target for intervention in management of the pro-inflammatory cascade associated with critical illness.

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 70 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 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Chemical Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 27 39%
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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#31,228,352
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#36,227
of 44,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,925
of 372,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#702
of 749 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 44,806 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 372,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 749 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.