↓ Skip to main content

The Immunology of Cardiovascular Homeostasis and Pathology

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 6: The Role of Cardiac Tissue Macrophages in Homeostasis and Disease
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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.
Chapter title
The Role of Cardiac Tissue Macrophages in Homeostasis and Disease
Chapter number 6
Book title
The Immunology of Cardiovascular Homeostasis and Pathology
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57613-8_6
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-957611-4, 978-3-31-957613-8
Authors

Alexei Ilinykh, Alexander R. Pinto, Ilinykh, Alexei, Pinto, Alexander R.

Abstract

Macrophages are principally recognized as an important cell type for removal of tissue debris and as sentinels for tissue damage and foreign antigens. However, macrophages also participate in a diverse range of biological processes including angiogenesis, fibrosis, immune modulation, cell survival, and stem cell mobilization. Cardiac tissue macrophages (cTMs) are a heterogeneous population of phagocytic cells with distinct ontogenetic, phenotypic, and functional characteristics. While our understanding of cTMs has increased substantially over the last 5 years, large gaps in our knowledge regarding the cell biology of cTMs exist, in particular, the development of their unique phenotype and their roles in cardiac homeostasis and tissue stress. This review aims to discuss the current knowledge regarding cTMs and identify key questions that must be addressed to gain a better understanding of the role of cTMs in tissue development, homeostasis, and disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Other 2 22%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,558,284
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,324
of 4,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,051
of 309,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#81
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 309,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.