↓ Skip to main content

The ageing human B cell repertoire: a failure of selection?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical & Experimental Immunology, October 2015
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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
The ageing human B cell repertoire: a failure of selection?
Published in
Clinical & Experimental Immunology, October 2015
DOI 10.1111/cei.12700
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

B cells undergo a number of different developmental stages, from initial formation of their B cell receptor (BCR) genes to differentiation into antibody secreting plasma cells. Since the BCR is vital in these differentiation steps, then autoreactive and exogenous antigen binding to the BCR exert critical selection pressures to shape the B cell repertoire. Older people are more prone to infectious disease, less able to respond well to vaccination and more likely to have autoreactive antibodies. Here we review evidence of changes in B cell repertoires in older people, which may be a reflection of age-related changes in B cell selection processes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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 20 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 110 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 %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 27 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,322,256
of 32,980,655 outputs
Outputs from Clinical & Experimental Immunology
#138
of 5,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,440
of 307,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical & Experimental Immunology
#2
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,980,655 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 307,582 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 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.