↓ Skip to main content

Biological Activity of Masked Endotoxin

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Biological Activity of Masked Endotoxin
Published in
Scientific Reports, March 2017
DOI 10.1038/srep44750
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harald Schwarz, Jan Gornicec, Theresa Neuper, Maria Alejandra Parigiani, Michael Wallner, Albert Duschl, Jutta Horejs-Hoeck

Abstract

Low endotoxin recovery (LER) is a recently discovered phenomenon describing the inability of limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL)-based assays to detect lipopolysaccharide (LPS) because of a "masking effect" caused by chelators or detergents commonly used in buffer formulations for medical products and recombinant proteins. This study investigates the masking capacities of different buffer formulations and whether masked endotoxin is biologically active. We show that both naturally occurring endotoxin as well as control standard endotoxin can be affected by LER. Furthermore, whereas masked endotoxin cannot be detected in Factor C based assays, it is still detectable in a cell-based TLR4-NF-κB-luciferase reporter gene assay. Moreover, in primary human monocytes, masked LPS induces the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and surface activation markers even at very low concentrations. We therefore conclude that masked LPS is a potent trigger of immune responses, which emphasizes the potential danger of masked LPS, as it may pose a health threat in pharmaceutical products or compromise experimental results.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 25%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 11%
Chemistry 11 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 34 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,277,723
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#49,250
of 123,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,097
of 309,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,824
of 4,488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 309,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.