↓ Skip to main content

Divergent functions for airway epithelial matrix metalloproteinase 7 and retinoic acid in experimental asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Immunology, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Divergent functions for airway epithelial matrix metalloproteinase 7 and retinoic acid in experimental asthma
Published in
Nature Immunology, March 2009
DOI 10.1038/ni.1719
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sangeeta Goswami, Pornpimon Angkasekwinai, Ming Shan, Kendra J Greenlee, Wade T Barranco, Sumanth Polikepahad, Alexander Seryshev, Li-zhen Song, David Redding, Bhupinder Singh, Sanjiv Sur, Prescott Woodruff, Chen Dong, David B Corry, Farrah Kheradmand

Abstract

The innate immune response of airway epithelial cells to airborne allergens initiates the development of T cell responses that are central to allergic inflammation. Although proteinase allergens induce the expression of interleukin 25, we show here that epithelial matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP7) was expressed during asthma and was required for the maximum activity of interleukin 25 in promoting the differentiation of T helper type 2 cells. Allergen-challenged Mmp7(-/-) mice had less airway hyper-reactivity and production of allergic inflammatory cytokines and higher expression of retinal dehydrogenase 1. Inhibition of retinal dehydrogenase 1 restored the asthma phenotype of Mmp7(-/-) mice and inhibited the responses of lung regulatory T cells, whereas exogenous administration of retinoic acid attenuated the asthma phenotype. Thus, MMP7 coordinates allergic lung inflammation by activating interleukin 25 while simultaneously inhibiting retinoid-dependent development of regulatory T cells.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 27%
Researcher 13 18%
Professor 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 8%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 13 18%
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 16 December 2009.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Nature Immunology
#3,168
of 3,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,269
of 92,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Immunology
#24
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 92,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.