| Title |
Cutting Edge: Check Your Mice—A Point Mutation in the Ncr1 Locus Identified in CD45.1 Congenic Mice with Consequences in Mouse Susceptibility to Infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Immunology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.4049/jimmunol.1701676 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Youngsoon Jang, Zachary J Gerbec, Taejoon Won, Bongkum Choi, Amy Podsiad, Bethany B Moore, Subramaniam Malarkannan, Yasmina Laouar |
| Abstract |
B6.SJL-PtprcaPepcb/Boy (CD45.1) mice have been used in hundreds of congenic competitive transplants, with the presumption that they differ from C57BL/6 mice only at the CD45 locus. In this study, we describe a point mutation in the natural cytotoxicity receptor 1 (Ncr1) locus fortuitously identified in the CD45.1 strain. This point mutation was mapped at the 40th nucleotide of theNcr1locus causing a single amino acid mutation from cysteine to arginine at position 14 from the start codon, resulting in loss of NCR1 expression. We found that these mice were more resistant to CMV due to a hyper innate IFN-γ response in the absence of NCR1. In contrast, loss of NCR1 increased susceptibility to influenza virus, a result that is consistent with the role of NCR1 in the recognition of influenza Ag, hemagglutinin. This work sheds light on potential confounding experimental interpretation when this congenic strain is used as a tool for tracking lymphocyte development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 27% |
| United States | 7 | 23% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Isle of Man | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Guinea | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 53% |
| Scientists | 12 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 34% |
| Researcher | 17 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 30 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,482,901
of 25,171,741 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Immunology
#340
of 31,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,199
of 339,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Immunology
#12
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,171,741 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 339,780 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 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.