↓ Skip to main content

Circulating Antibody and Memory B-Cell Responses to C. difficile Toxins A and B in Patients with C. difficile-Associated Diarrhoea, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Cystic Fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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.
Title
Circulating Antibody and Memory B-Cell Responses to C. difficile Toxins A and B in Patients with C. difficile-Associated Diarrhoea, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Cystic Fibrosis
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0074452
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanya M. Monaghan, Adrian Robins, Alan Knox, Herbert F. Sewell, Yashwant R. Mahida

Abstract

C. difficile infection (CDI) is rarely reported in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients despite frequent hospitalisations and antibiotic usage. Conversely, the prevalence of CDI in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has received increased attention. We investigated components of the IgG-specific humoral immune response to C. difficile toxins A and B in patients with C. difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD), IBD patients with CDI, CF patients and healthy controls. Serum anti-toxin IgG was determined by ELISA. Circulating antigen-activated B-cells were investigated using Alexa Fluor 488-labelled toxin A and assessed by flow cytometry. Following induction of differentiation of memory B-cells, toxin A- and B-specific antibody secreting cells (ASCs) were quantified using ELISpot. We present the first data showing levels of serum anti-toxin A and B antibodies were significantly higher in patients with CF (without a history of CDI) than in CDAD patients and were stably maintained over time. Notably, the CDAD patients were significantly older than the CF patients. We also show that circulating toxin A-specific memory B-cells (IgD-negative) can be detected in CDAD patients [0.92 (0.09-1.78)%], and were prominent (5.64%, 1.14%) in two CF patients who were asymptomatic carriers of C. difficile. There was correlation between toxin A- and B-specific ASCs, with significantly higher proportions of the latter seen. In some with CDAD, high serum antibody levels were seen to only one of the two toxins. Mucosal secretion of toxin-specific IgG was detected in an additional group of IBD patients with no history of CDI. We conclude that enhanced and stable humoral immune responses to toxins A and B may protect CF and some IBD patients against CDI. The impaired ability to generate strong and/or sustained toxin-specific antibody and memory B-cell responses may increase susceptibility of older patients to CDI and highlight the need to investigate the role of immune senescence in future studies.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 19%
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 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,203,867
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,131
of 193,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,633
of 198,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,288
of 4,974 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 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 193,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 198,348 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 4,974 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.